JONMALEK.com

There was an article out today about a “new conspiracy theory” regarding Leonardo Da Vinci’s Last Supper.  I’m not going to get into it itself - read about it here http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070801/DaVinci_supper_070801/20070801?hub=TopStories.

What I am more interested in is the reaction to it.  On the CTV address I gave there are comments from readers below, ranging from “Who cares? Maybe a dozen people over the entire planet who obviously have nothing better to do than stare at a old painting by some dead guy” to “Who cares!!!!!!!!
Last time I checked Da Vinci’s Dead. Nothing of interest can come of this. READ THE BIBLE” or “and imaginative ideas about Jesus, but they don’t take any interest in the historical account of his life recorded in the New Testament. Why is everyone so ready to believe wild and baseless speculation but so unwilling to wrestle with the well documented truth? The New Testament documents are among the most historically accurate ancient documents anywhere. Hundreds have tried to disprove them and have instead come to believe.”

As a student of history I could not help but write back to some of these baseless, ignorant, and just plain stupid responses.  The first I will deal with is the comment referring to the “dozen people over the entire planet”.  My guess is the bloke who wrote this is either not in university, or is in no way whatsoever involved in Arts or Humanities.  Art History is in fact a very active field, and has been since the 16th century; art is a physical relic of cultural history, a documentation of faith, aesthetic tastes, and ideals of an individual or society.  Art and art history is not just a field secluded to the university campus or museum, but is in fact a very public attraction.  Take for instance National Lampoon’s parody of the Mona Lisa http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.studiolo.org/Mona/images/MonaGorilla2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.studiolo.org/Mona/MONA24.htm&h=300&w=216&sz=15&hl=en&start=0&um=1&tbnid=h_kYny4tWgroQM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmona%2Bgorilla%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

By making a parody of the Mona Lisa, or anything for that matter, we are actively engaging with painting; we don’t need to be a scholar or an academic to appreciate such parodies.

My second point of concern is the claims that “The New Testament documents are among the most historically accurate ancient documents anywhere.” Its amazing how right somebody can seem if they speak as if they know what they are talking about.  Unfortunately, the Bible is not an historical document; it is a documentation of spiritual exploits of Jesus, yes, but that does not make it historical, especially in our sense of the term.  For instance, the Gospels tell different and conflicting stories of Jesus; very very little is told of Jesus’s childhood, except as it relates to his ministry.  So we cannot go saying that the New Testament is an historical document (and there are certainly many more ancient documents more trustworthy in terms of historical accuracy).  The Gospels were written, it is generally agreed, at least a generation after the crucifixion, and the Book of John even later.  Today, we can write a biography of someone who lived a hundred years or more before us with a great deal of accuracy because of historical documents; but Jesus left behind no writings, and there was no such thing as historical documentation of the same capacity of today.  This is not to question the validity of the Bible, or to call into question to spiritual truth that is ascribed to the Bible.  But one must understand what an accurate historical document is before ascribing the term to people’s recounting of their spiritual encounter with Jesus.

But, the funny thing to me is that nobody stated that Leonardo was questioning the story or claiming it to be false; he was a trickster, and loved to prank his patrons.  Just research the two versions of the Madonna of the Rocks.  The Church that he did his commission for was so scandalized by his first version that they demanded he do another, less heretical one before receiving full payment.  In the field of history - art history included - the question of what is true is not always as important as what somebody thought was true.

- JGM

I had an epiphany (of sorts) today, in how my studies (well, anyone’s at that) can be likened to a fantasy RPG game which is based on a character who gains experience with each task done, learning new techniques and growing stronger as they level up.

Perhaps not much of an epiphany, but I’ll take what I can get.

The example that comes to mind is my first attempt at reading Frances Yates’ The Occult Philosophy of the Elizabethan Age.  It is a very well written, researched, and (when published) an original book.  However, despite my interest in the topic, I was not quite prepared to read it - I didn’t have the background that I needed to understand what I was reading, though I was able to catch some points.  Just like when you are playing a game, you need to start from the beginning and work your way up.  In a game, you go out and complete quests and adventures; in university, you read introductory texts and more intermediate scholarship until you are ready to read the more difficult, and more rewarding, materials.

This may just be one of those epiphanies that makes sense only in my head, and if not I don’t know what use it’ll be anyways.

So the Christmas season is upon us again; I heard a little while ago on the news that there was a tremendous backlash last year about big retail stores dropping “Merry Christmas” for “Happy Holidays”. I always thought it was a stupid thing do, not because I’m inconsiderate to other people’s religions or beliefs, but because it was a stupid thing to do. I’m curious if any one did actually make complaints about using “Merry Christmas”; I never heard of any, but I’d like to know…. It was rather perplexing to me why they would do such a thing; although Christmas has certainly become a very commercialized and secular affair, it is nevertheless a Christian holiday - thus Christmas stems from Christ’s Mass. I think the best thing to do, to not offend others or make them feel out of place is to perhaps wait until December before putting up Christmas decorations and selling Christmas in the malls and big stores. Perhaps even acknowledge the other holidays that occur at this time, like Hanukkah for instance. Just a thought - although, I have many thoughts and no “big wig” has taken any of them just yet.

My post is more concerned with The Nativity, the movie about Jesus’ birth which premiered in the Vatican and apparently brought in $5.5 million in its first weekend. I thought it was a fantastic movie, for many reasons that I hope to remember to discuss below. I went on www.newadvent.com, a Catholic website, to see if anything was posted about it. Many thought it was a great movie but there was a surprising number of people who denounced it as heretical and warned parents not to bring their children to see it (because of the scene where Elizabeth gave birth). The Vatican also received some criticism for even showing the movie. I’m going to overview some of the problems people had with the movie in as neutral a manner as possible; I have a hard time not letting my own thoughts enter a discussion sometimes, but I don’t want to be seen as putting down or tarnishing other people’s vehement protests with the movie.

The whole protests centers on the Immaculate Conception, one of the core dogmas of the Catholic faith, which was in fact not ratified as doctrine until 1854, though had been traditional teaching for centuries. To me, the movie fantastic. After reading some responses to the movie, I understand and agree it is not a theological movie, and certainly did not draw on Catholic theology for insight. But it added something to Christ and his birth that I think is missing from Christianity today for the most part - his humanity. Not to sound preachy, but it is the humanity of Jesus that makes his life so extraordinary. Much theology in the middle ages surrounded the question cur deus homo? - “why the god-man?” Meaning, why did God become man? Did He actually become man, or did he just appear to be man (as the Gnostics believed)?Was it necessary for God to become man? Men such as St. Anselm dealt with this question and, to me, give a pretty logical answer. It stems from the belief that humanity had been a slave of sin, called Original Sin, which had been incurred when Adam and Eve performed the first act of disobedience. The whole point behind Jesus’ life and his Passion is that he freed us from that sin. Some belief that Jesus’ life was in essence traded for the lives of all of humanity with the devil, though to me this is so extremely debasing to God that I wouldn’t consider it - for God barters with no one. But Jesus sacrificed Himself to God to free humanity of sins; thus theology would say that no human could do this, for they are already tainted by sin. But Jesus would be completely free of sin, original and actual (sin incurred during one’s life). That leads me to my point - Jesus came completely free of sin and, being God himself (under belief in the Trinity) was in fact Perfect. Many have asked why Jesus would do this, and you have to have a certain level of humility to understand what is meant. To theologians, the human body was corrupted with sin; but Jesus became a man himself, taking on the sins of humanity (though himself remaining pure). That, to me, is the essence of his entire life, and why it is important to remember His human side. It is a very complicated, and may even seem contradictory, theology, but hopefully I’ve given the major point of it across - that Jesus, who was sinless, came into this world with a sinful body and took the sins of humanity on himself and sacrificed himself to cleanse those sins. It important, so I believe, to remember that God and Jesus are not just some aloof, omnipotent angry God that lives away from us. Indeed, so much theology claims that God is present in anything that he created - thus He is omnipresent. But even that seems a little removed for me (quite oddly, come to think of it). But “God so loved the world” (from the ever popular John 3:16) that he not only saved humanity, but became a part of humanity. Anyways, that is my point - that the movie’s merit is that it emphasizes this human aspect.

Most of the criticisms of the movie came from the portrayal of Mary. Indeed, she is portrayed as a normal girl who got that funny feeling in her belly when looking at boys, as what happened in the opening of the movie. One commenter was scandalized “that Mary looks to have been participating in some kind of impropriety” that merited a scornful look from her mother, Anne, who is also believed to have given a virgin birth to Mary. The same writer is also horrified that Mary and Joseph planned to have a large family. This all goes in the face, so the writer claims, of the Immaculate Conception, which essentially means that Mary conceived Jesus with the Holy Spirit miraculously, with no sexual intercourse, and that even in giving birth to Him she remained a virgin (physically).

The writer’s next major issue is when Mary returns from her cousin Elizabeth’s pregnant and Joseph is horrified. This is especially where my original argument comes in. Though Mary had already experienced the Annunciation, where the angel Gabriel came to her to tell her of the birth, Joseph had not yet been visited. This writer seems to think that Joseph and Mary lived removed from contemporary society, in which having a baby with another man was a stoneable offense. Barbaric or not today, that’s the way it was and Mary and Joseph lived in that world. In that society, Joseph’s name would have been shamed, just as that of Mary’s family. The writer was offended because Joseph should at all act like this; but once he is visited in a dream by Gabriel he accepts it wholly and with complete faith.

This leads me to my next point, that the writer claimed “There is no sign of worship or adoration by either Mary or Joseph.” This makes me wonder if they completely shut their mind off to the previous events in the movie; their entire trek to Bethlehem was full of wonder that they should be chosen to fulfill God’s promise to humanity. I am curious if the writer expected Mary, after giving birth to a child, to drop to her knees in genuflection and praise the baby. It seems that the writer believes Jesus was born in a non-traditional way - as if He just appeared out of Mary’s womb. Here is what it comes down to, for me. God and Jesus are such that there is no way we can totally comprehend them. They are not perfect, but rather Perfection; they are not great, but they are Greatness. They are beyond human description or understanding. Many theologians simply referred to the Trinity as the Perfect. And so do I believe. I personally wonder how much others believe this, if they believe that having Christ born as a normal human - which is what he came to humanity as - would tarnish Him. He is in face so pure that nothing can tarnish him, because he is Greatness, and he cannot be tarnished. And beyond this, to me, He came to humanity as a human.

However, after giving such an opinion I must also state that I don’t speak entirely from a Catholic point of view. I don’t know particularly what is taught in the Catholic Catechism, so cannot fully comment on the issues people have found with the movie. I’m not sure entirely what denomination I would fall under, but I believe the miracle is not that God was among humans, but that God became a man. I think this movie did a superb job at portraying not only this, but also the humanity of Mary and Joseph and the world in which they lived. Of course, as Robert Langdon said (oh no- quoting fictional characters; here I go!) “what matters is what you believe.” Today, there are so many versions of the Truth that it is bewildering. Obviously the Catholic Church believes it has the truth. But so does everyone else who has a firm belief; if they thought it wasn’t Truth, how could they knowingly follow it? So what is one to do? In terms of Christianity, what must one do? Is faith in Jesus enough? (and I mean honest faith, not just proclaiming you believe in Jesus and then feel you can go about doing as you wish. True belief brings about a change in one’s life, where one’s actions reflect that belief.) Or do you have to believe a catechism of the Church, or the teachings of the Protestants, or the utterings of a prophet in the 19th century? What is truth and how do I find it? Or is faith in something divine false? How are we to know? That is the essence of faith, I suppose- we can not truly know on this world. I know many people believe that they know without a doubt, and I respect that; perhaps someday I too will find a Truth that I will have no doubt about.

I’d be interested to know what other think of (a) the movie, and (b) Truth…even if it is only from my four readers.

— JGM

I realized today that my excuse to lull my worries about my “Decision” is not 100% accurate; I have been telling myself that I have two years (well, a year and a half now) until I start Graduate school. However, I have to start applying to grad schools next year by December 2007/January 2008. I had been content with Medieval/Renaissance studies the last week or two, until I got my Canadian History paper back French Canadian Fortifications along the Richelieu River. My prof gave me an A on the paper and said I should seriously consider getting it published. That’s very encouraging but also confuses me a little more.

When I speak to others about it, its often said that I should go with Medieval because its more exciting. Despite that most of these people don’t have much of an understanding of both fields, what it comes down to is more complicated than what is “exciting”. Your work is as exciting as you make it, and the problem is that both excite and interest me greatly. The best comparison of someone saying “medieval history is more exciting” is like telling somebody to date a particular person because they are better looking than someone else, not considering the more consequential factors that go beyond looks. It goes beyond that with me. I agree that Medieval and Renaissance history does look more interesting than Canadian Colonial history, and in is own right it is - but so to is Canadian colonial history.

While I won’t take up the time to explain what exactly interests me in both subjects, all I need to say is that they both engage different parts of my mind. Colonial history engages my more investigative, worldly, history talents while Medieval & Renaissance appeals to the more abstract-thinking section of my head.

However, I still have a fair amount of time before any decision needs to be made.

JGM

I just finished writing a book review on St. Augustine’s Enchiridion (Handbook) on Faith, Hope, and Love. I am posting it up here for you to read, should you wish. It is immensely enjoyable for me to be able to engage in a work older than 1500 years old, and the fact that it is a work of theology made it the more.

Assignments have been my life the last few days; hopefully the effort and time has been well used, creating a meaningful review and reflection upon this work.

Book review: Here

http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augenchiridion/enchiridiontoc.html

Popular opinion states my last post was a success, so its now time to disappoint all my critics.

Its my birthday today, and I’ve turned 22. Its an exciting birthday because the next time I’ll have two of the same digits in my age is in another 11 years; so I better savour this coming year. Other than that, it was just another birthday. It was nice for everyone to be over, and luckily Little Owen was over and was the life of the party, taking the pressure off me. I remember when I was younger I heard that the older you get, the less important your birthdays seem. No idea where I heard that from, but I heard it somewhere. And, well, its rather true in my case. While they’re still exciting - what with the gatherings, the gifts, the attention… - they come and go much faster. The excitement of the day itself doesn’t really dissipate, but its certainly not as when I was a kid, counting the weeks, then days, to my birthday, then remembering how great it was for days after.

But perhaps that only means that I’ve found other things to count down to? Isn’t life just the time in between you waiting for something to happen? And lets face it - our ultimate date is the one we were born for. Job 1:21 reads “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return there; the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away….” So what then can be called the best lived life? The one with the most appointments, the one with the most dates to count down to? I would be cautious to say so. If I didn’t have so many things to wait for, things to preoccupy myself with, perhaps a simple yet huge event as my birthday would be met with more anticipation. Then again, perhaps not. I’ve been counting down the months, then weeks, and now days until school starts up once again. Perhaps its just a case of shifting levels of importance that I place on all the things going on in my life. Certainly, though, school - more specifically History - is a huge part of my life; anyone who knows nill about me will know that. As one of my older posts states(which I admit was copied from an older writing I had done a couple of months ago), history is a mistress of mine that is so dear to me. And if it wasn’t for my REAL, human mistress I’d probably be an eccentric book-hermit by this stage.

Perhaps thus is the meaning of life. Not history, in particular, but rather finding your own Mistress for life. Ultimately I can’t see any point to life, even when religion is in the picture. If we leave a human womb only to enter the womb of God, is there a point to that? Sure, some may easily say the point is to pray, worship, do good deeds, and then gain entry to Heaven; and although I can theologically agree with this argument (for reasons to long to put down here) I can’t help but feel that it seems a little silly. (For an atheist this dilemna is almost non-existent, but again - its a whole different argument.) I say that life is by-and-large pointless, to the point of despair. Therefore I think it is wrong, or at least utterly pointless, to enter into long polemics and apologies on the point of life (and, rest assured - this is neither!) For we must not ask others what to point of life is. It is not some generalized thing that can be summed up with one point, such as asking what the job of a human resources manager of a company is. Such a thing has a specific description. But life is to individual to summarize; yes yes we all have the same things we go through, but we all experience them differently. Some things one experiences is never experienced by another. So it is to ourselves that we must ask what the point of life is, for - because this life is so individual - it is up to us to decide what the point of our life is. For some it is religion; for some it is school; for some it is personal ambition; for some its family. But ultimately it is up to us to decide what makes us tick, right until our time runs out.
Yet one more case of Tom Foolery

I get these boughts from time to time where as if I’m lost, as if I fit in my surroundings yet I don’t quite belong. As if I’m playing the biggest trick on everyone by fooling them into believing I belong where I am! Its not a case of a lack of satisfaction, or a lack of happiness, or shame of the life I’m in. Its as if I’ve been kidnapped from some other era and thrown into the 20th/21st century. Even though I’m not a social outkast and have a fairly ‘normal’ social life, I’ve always felt as if I’ve been drifting just on the outskirts of social life, spending more time watching & studying than I have in partaking in. Perhaps thats why my life choice has been to study history than, say, make history. Sometimes they’re fleeting moments where I take a step back stunned, as if I’ve come out of a trance stuttering “where am I? what am I doing here? what kind of world have I stumbled into?” I think I’d be narcissistic to think I’m the only one this happens too, of course, but its intriguing enough to me to be blog-able.

I seem to have fooled people into thinking that I am in fact a blogger - but alas I am not! Blogging is very difficult, though; no, really it is. Its a lot different than writing in a personal diary that you know nobody will read. Thus you are free to put down anything you want: your thoughts, your feelings, your believes, your distastes, your hatreds, your loves…&c. And undoubtedly some stuff in your diary you would not want anyone to read, ever, either because they are your deepest of dark secrets or because it would hurt the person reading it. With a blog you don’t have that confidentiality. I wouldn’t trust anyone who is a blogger, when it comes to any self-reflection, because they know somebodies going to be reading it. And if they aren’t embellishing something to improve their net-image then they may be hiding certain things to maintain their net-image. Or, perhaps they are being completely open and honest with their self and others. But thats a gamble you don’t really have to take with a diary.

Being the Loki that I am, I just blogged a paragraph on the faults of blogging.