Last year I published a book exploring the relationship between Jesus and the Beloved Disciple (I Was There: The Autobiography of John the Beloved Disciple, Authorhouse). For your readers who might be experiencing some confusion arising from the many views expressed in the Da Vinci Code controversy, I would like to vouch for the accuracy of all the statements and the correctness of the viewpoints presented in Michael Bronski’s excellent article “Queering the Code” (May 19). The relationship between Jesus and John is made clear, not only in depictions of the Last Supper, but in countless works of art representing the Crucifixion: the young man standing on Jesus’s left, underneath the cross, crying his eyes out, is John.
But I take exception to Bronski’s conclusion. While I agree that gay people should not demand the support of those who claim to be “Christians” on the basis of artists’ representations, we should demand their support because the Gospels tell us very clearly that our numbers include Jesus and John.
Having recently read your article “Queering the Code,” I was once again appalled by how the media hype surrounding The Da Vinci Code has incessantly misrepresented the discoveries of modern biblical scholarship. In this case, you have equated the Apostle John with the “Beloved Disciple” (not “Apostle”) who authored the Gospel of John. The author, who narrates the Gospel of John in the first person, is not and has never been, even by the Catholic Church, identified with John the Apostle. They are two different people. In fact, the name “John” was appended to the gospel for expediency’s sake, due to the fact that the author never identified himself by name.
A much repeated argument in defense of Dan Brown’s novel is that, in spite of its flaws, it is at least bringing to the public’s attention important debates concerning the true identity of Jesus (Joshua of Galilee). You have once again negated this argument in your misinformed article. Thanks a bunch for fucking it up for all of us who would like to bring the historical Jesus to the public’s attention.
Those who harbor latent animosity toward religion will certainly welcome The Da Vinci Code in much the same way The Passover Plot and The Last Temptation of Christ were heralded in years past as works that forced the church and its tendency toward secrecy into greater transparency.
Those who have witnessed their share of preposterous allegations and ill-founded rumors challenging the concept of Christ’s divinity are likely to remain firm in their faith, and will hopefully be encouraged to further educate themselves.
Those who have already turned their backs on their faith for various reasons will probably find Dan Brown’s opus a deep well of riches to further embellish their already skewed premises. In other words, they will remain entrenched in their folly. Which only goes to prove that a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.
Miguel A. Guanipa
I agree with most of what you say about our prez. However, not so fast on the illegals issue (“Unfinished Business,” May 5). Knee-jerk liberals are now trying to cast all those opposed to this huge illegal invasion as Nativist bigots. I see it as businessmen trying to displace American workers with cheap labor. And Bush will never go after the employers, but something has to be done.
To me, the Cambridge radical-chic viewpoint calling illegals just “immigrants” insults all those trying to enter the USA legally.