Related
Translate
Advertisements *
Elsewhere
Get RNB via RSS
 |
RNB's RSS feed What is this? |
Get RNB via Email
 |
 Subscribe by Email What is this? |
Follow: Twitter
Most Popular
This Week:
- Guyana’s Jonestown suicide site gets plaque
- Scientology practices ‘putting people at risk’
- Recession: Muslim schools in UK under threat of closure
- Australian senator tells Parliament of widespread criminal conduct within the Church of Scientology
- When a child dies, faith is no defense
- World’s oldest ocean-going passenger ship, ministry ship Doulos, to stop sailing
- Israel Charges Extremist With Attempted Murder Of Messianic Family
- Scientology’s feet held to the fire in Australia: Struggle between a church and the state
- 1-year prison term for man who participated in cyber attack on Church of Scientology Web sites
- Australian police take up complaints about Scientology
I guard the secrets of the Da Vinci temple
More articles on this topic: Da Vinci CodeThe Master of the Temple, caught up in Da Vinci Code mania, says Dan Brown’s blockbuster gives churches a chance to put their case
It is Easter, but that is not why people are talking about Jesus. The Good Book describing his life has been toppled by Gnostic gospels and airport paperbacks. Last week came the publication of The Gospel According to Judas, which made out that, in getting Christ crucified, Judas was just following his orders. In America, Michael Baigent, a co-author of the 1980s bestseller The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, is plugging his new work, The Jesus Papers, which argues that Pilate faked the Crucifixion. And then, also high on the bestseller lists, come the latest spiritual-adventure novels: Kate Mosse’s Labyrinth, Javier Sierra’s The Secret Supper and Matilde Asensi’s The Last Cato.
It is all the fault of Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, an arcane conspiracy thriller that has sold 40 million copies and next month appears as a movie starring Tom Hanks. It posits a secret, suppressed Christian history in which Jesus married Mary Magdalene and sired a daughter whose descendants, in opposition to religious orthodoxy, venerated sex and the female. The “truth” has been guarded through the ages by a secret society, The Priory of Sion. Among its members was Leonardo, whose fresco The Last Supper allegedly depicts Mary Magdalene sitting next to Jesus. Last week The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail authors lost, with notable poor grace, a breach of copyright action against Brown for “stealing” what they considered their theory. It is all very bizarre and getting rather nasty.
The Rev Robin Griffith-Jones, a 49-year-old Anglican cleric, finds himself caught in the middle of it. He is the Master of the Temple, a 12th-century church just south of Fleet Street in London that owes its name to its founders, the Order of the Knights Templar. As anyone who has read The Da Vinci Code will recall, one of its false climaxes occurs in the temple as the hero and heroine seek among its effigies of crusader knights “the orb that ought to be on his tomb”.
“We have had a huge increase in visitors,” says Griffith-Jones. “The tourist trail used to go up the Strand to St Paul’s and miss us out. Now there must be well over a thousand people a week coming through our doors. And they love it.”
If they arrive at 1pm on a Friday, they will chance upon one of London’s great bargains: for ?4 they can hear Griffith-Jones deliver a witty, one-hour talk that he has now expanded into a short book, The Da Vinci Code and the Secrets of The Temple. The master takes the thriller seriously enough to give it a good debunking. “What I’ve tried to say is that this is a rip-roaring page-turner, a fantastic read. Historically, it’s rubbish, but it’s a novel, and some questions it raises are extremely interesting.”
Next week, partly to promote his book, Griffith-Jones will be in New York. I warn him that such is the extent of Grail Fever over there that fans are likely to throw themselves at the feet of a real live “Reverent and Valiant Master of the Temple”. He laughs and says he must remember to bring his scarlet cassock. The fictional master in the Da Vinci Code reputedly possesses a “foul temper”. The real one is so good-humoured that his sentences — spoken or written — tend to end in exclamation marks. He is a worldly sort of eccentric, the son of the prosecuting counsel in the Lady Chatterley’s Lover obscenity trial in 1960 (the one who asked the jury if they would let their wives or servants read the novel), a former Oxford University maths student who worked for six years at Christie’s auction house before finding his vocation. His hair is blondish white and he favours vividly coloured jumpers rather than dog collars, let alone scarlet robes.
His book systematically plucks every thread from Brown’s tapestry. Although the Knights Templar have been so traduced over the centuries that they probably have no reputation left to lose, he explains carefully that they accumulated their wealth during the Crusades as, in effect, one of the first international banks, not by blackmailing the Pope with heretical proofs.
The good times ended in 1307, when Edward II came to the Temple and removed ?50,000 worth of silver, gold, jewellery and precious stones from its money chests. Philip IV of France simultaneously began a widespread suppression of the Knights. The lawyers of the Inner and Middle Temple now look after the church and are obliged by statute to pay the master an annual stipend of ?26, one shilling and sixpence a year.
Another chapter deals with Opus Dei, an unsavoury outfit even in Griffith-Jones’s balanced account, but not one that included monks (so Brown’s assassin Silas, with his self-flagellating cilice under his habit, could not exist). Another section analyses The Last Supper: the figure next to Christ does not have breasts; it just looks that way because of how his shirt is gathered. Since The Da Vinci Code does not purport to be anything more than fiction, Griffith-Jones cannot really object to any of this. What he can object to are Brown’s claims at the front of the book printed under the word “Fact”. Brown asserts: “The Priory of Sion — a European secret society founded in 1099 — is a real organisation.” It was, says the master, actually founded in the 1950s by a French con artist named Plantard. As for the “parchment known as Les Dossiers Secrets” it was just a batch of typed documents, no more ancient than the typewriter.
But there is one allegation against the Church that he cannot so easily dismiss. “If you say, ‘Has the Church misused women for most of its 2,000 years?’ the answer is yes. So let’s be honest about it. We are, I think, slowly but surely getting through that, but it’s taking an awful long time. The Church does seem to outsiders to be terrified of sex, and particularly to be terrified of women’s sexual allure and the threat they seem to offer to celibate men.”
Again, however, Brown has misinterpreted church history to bolster his case. The Gnostic gospels, including Mary’s and Judas’s, may have become fashionable New Age texts, but they are anything but proto-feminist or pro-sex texts. “The Gnosticism of the ancient world was very deep, thoughtful and profound, but it was world-denying. It was misogynistic. It was exclusivist. It was pretty unattractive, actually. I’m not sure that one should just lightly say, ‘I am the heir of these people’. Are you really? Crikey!”
Griffith-Jones accepts that no one knows for sure, but he does not believe that Jesus married. There was a Jewish tradition of celibacy in the 1st century that Brown, naturally, ignores. But nor does he dismiss the claim as risible fantasy. “After all, who’s making the incredible claims, Dan Brown or the Church? We are! We are saying virgin birth, walk on water, raised from the dead. Come on!” Would it matter to him if Christ had married? “No, it wouldn’t, but I do recognise that for a large number of people it would, and I respect that. I genuinely respect the offence and difficulty that it would cause.”
Yet in his chapters concering Christ’s celibacy, Griffith-Jones himself tries to reposition women at the heart of the New Testament. In a reworking of the last part of his 2001 book The Four Witnesses, he says St John’s Gospel has poetic motifs from the Garden of Eden and Song of Songs. In its final scene on Easter Day, Mary Magdalene meets Jesus outside the empty tomb and mistakes him for the gardener. Then he calls her by her name. Griffith-Jones writes: “Who are these two, this man and this woman, in a springtime garden as the light rises on Day 1? They are Adam and Eve. They are together again in Paradise, the Garden of Eden, and all creation is made new.” This is fine as literary criticism, but it does not get to the truth of what actually happened right after Jesus was executed. In these pages a few years ago William Rees-Mogg called St John’s Gospel “the most vivid portrait of Jesus, by the friend who knew him best”, but modern scholars doubt that the apostle John is the John who wrote the gospel. Even Griffith-Jones seems agnostic on the issue. He claims that John, rather than giving an eye-witness account, was trying to bring the story alive to early Christians as a series of faith-affirming surprises, the last and greatest experienced by Mary in the garden on Easter Day. In that case, I say, aren’t Brown and St John both really novelists? “No! Good heavens, they don’t read like novels! If you read The Golden Ass you see what an ancient novel is like; it’s completely different.”
So what are the gospels? “We must rediscover them as forms of mystagogic texts.” Mystagogic? “Initiating the reader into a mystery. Once you recognise that this is what the texts are, they come alive in a most humane way.”
Like Brown, then, Griffith-Jones is trying to rescue Mary Magdalene from centuries of error and fear. His next book will be about her and the role of women in the early Church. In a funny sort of way, I say, wasn’t D. H. Lawrence trying for a similar rehabilitation of the carnal in Lady Chatterley’s Lover? “That’s very interesting. Yes, he does talk of sex as a sort of sacrament.”
The 1960 trial, in which a jury cleared Penguin books of obscene publication, has been on people’s minds because of Andrew Davies’s BBC TV drama in which Pip Torrens played Mervyn Griffith-Jones, Robin’s father. Was, I ask, his home full of servants being told what to read by his dad? “We had a nanny. My father died when I was in my early twenties, but I have been told by his junior that he when he sat down at the trial after his opening speech he said, ‘ That’s it. It’s over’. He knew he had lost. His junior said it was quite surprising because Dad apparently would write out his speeches word for word, and he’d added this sentence about wives and servants at the last minute.”
His father wanted Robin to follow him into the law. “I had a rather unsettled schooling because I was not, as a young man, very good at recognising what I was rebelling against. In fact, I was trying to react against the path laid out for me.”
He quit Eton for Westminster and obtained a third in maths at Oxford. Later, he worked in the English drawings and watercolours department at Christie’s, though during his first week a friend angered him by predicting that he would end up ordained. In his late twenties he left Christie’s, worked with Mother Teresa in Calcutta for six months and was eventually accepted by the Church. After spending three years as a curate in Liverpool, he became chaplain at Lincoln College, Oxford, and joined the Temple in 1999.
And yet, I note, for a man so spirited in his support of women, he has never married? “It is the regret of my life so far. I’d like to have a family. Here I am writing a book about Mary Magdalene! I’m not sure, in a way, if I’m the person best equipped to do so. I spent quite a lot of my life quite close to someone but it isn’t the same as being married and having a family.”
So he lives an untidy bachelor’s life in a house a few yards from the Temple. “God willing, one day it will fall into place and I’ll then have that completeness.”
I ask if, all in all, he is glad Brown wrote The Da Vinci Code. “Yes, in the larger setting of the responses that it’s made possible from churches. In itself, it just sort of hangs there and can mislead people, but it does give an astonishing opportunity for churches to respond and clarify things in an open and upbeat way, and for that I’m very glad.”
What You Can Do From Here
|
Read More Articles On These Topics
 Share, Blog About, Bookmark, or Email This Article
Subscribe
Read Another Article
 Previous entry: Indonesia Muslim hardliners attack Playboy building Next entry: Excerpt from the book The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History
RNB Homepage with latest headlinesFind Related Information
Find Related Books
|
Share This Article
To share this page simply copy and paste one of these URL's:
