Back to Articles

Beyond "Da Vinci" Fiction to "Kissing Code" Reality

by byron lebeau © 2004

So what's the big fuss trying to evaluate or dissect or otherwise bludgeon a fairly good and popular novel that had succeeded to stay on the 'BEST SELLER' list for a good six months? Why waste precious ink rehashing the fables of an author's mind - like Dan Brown, who penned THE DA VINCI CODE? The answer is simple: Brown had elected to present MUCH OF his material as "FACT" wherein he states boldly on his "FACT" page:

"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."

SO WHAT? To me, I could care less, especially since this was a pretty good murder mystery with good plot twists and turns, leaving one continually guessing about WHAT'S WHAT...except for one thing: It presents THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY find (a document) in such a manner as to DISTORT its sacred contents, leaving any reader, unfamiliar with this sacred work, with a skewed idea of what is going on in the Gospel of Philip (a tractate within THE NAG HAMMADI texts,) and therefore worthy of critical reevaluation.

(Incidentally, I had gone through a similar exercise once before in my essay, "THE MARRING OF THE NAG HAMMADI," where I had taken to task, one, Jim Marrs, for 'proof-texting' information within the Gospel of Philip; his work was allegedly 'NON-FICTION' and the essay can be found under the works of byron lebeau on Eve Lorgen's site, THE LOVE BITE, at www.alienlovebite.com

Dan Brown continues the shoddy theme of Marrs in Brown's novel, especially as it relates to the TRUE relationship of Jesus with Mary Magdalene, but before examining where Brown may have taken a wrong turn in his plot twists regarding this theme, it may interest the reader of this critical review just how "accurate" Brown was in his bold assertions of "FACTS" before chapter one of his novel.

Dan Burstein, in his 2004 book, SECRETS of the CODE, puts together an impressive group of critics, some of whom take Brown to task for his myriad INACCURACIES regarding his so-called FACTS! One essayist in particular, David Shugarts, (a journalist, editor-in-chief and founding editor of 'Aviation Safety' magazine,) in his "The Plot Holes & Intriguing Details of 'The Da Vinci Code'" goes on for almost thirty pages about Brown's inaccuracies. Starting on page 254, the litany includes inaccurate remarks from the sublime to the ridiculous, but I will mention just a few so the reader can get a sense that this novel is made up of (to be kind) pseudo-historical references:

1) The author has jasmine blossoming in April when, in fact, jasmine is a summer-blossoming plant. 2) Langdon, the protagonist, says that President Mitterand of France, explicitly ordered 666 panes of glass for the new Pyramid at the entrance to the Louvre, suggesting a Satanic link; in fact, there are 698 pieces of glass. 3) Robert Langdon also says the pentacle is representative of the female half of all things~~a concept religious historians call the "sacred feminine" or the "divine goddess." True? No! The pentacle represents both male & female, exactly as does yang & yin. 4) The author talks about the famous painting, "Mona Lisa" as if that was what it was named already when Leonardo da Vinci (called 'Da Vinci' by Brown) was allegedly arranging the name to become 'Amon L'lsa'...yet Leonardo NEVER called it "Mona Lisa" during his lifetime, but the painting was referred to, among other names as "a courtesan with a gauze veil." 5) Dan Brown says that "The Dead Sea Scrolls" were found in the 1950s. In fact, they were found in 1947, two years after THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY leather-bound codices were found in jars in upper Egypt. 6) And Brown couldn't even get the FACTS about Alexander Pope correct, even though Pope is a play on words that somehow fits snugly into the plot twists and "intrigue." Brown has Pope giving a eulogy for Sir Isaac Newton...BUT...in reality, Pope had only crafted the epitaph for him which read:

"Nature and Nature's Laws lay hid at Night. God said, Let Newton be! and All was Light.

WHAT IS NOT LIGHT is BROWN'S GRASP OF HISTORICAL ACCURACY!

SO WHAT? As I said before, if Brown was just writing in the vacuum of NON-FICTION, it wouldn't matter a tinker's dam, but when he starts introducing sacred documents to shore-up his plot twists, and has Jesus impregnating Mary Magdalene, who then claws her way to France - which introduces the "seed" for an eventual bloodline via the Merovingian dynasty, one has to say: HOLD ON, HERE!

[Burstein's collection of essays is replete with critics who can find NO EVIDENCE FOR SUCH A THING BEING TRUE...but then again, what else is new? This is a novel, right?

SO WHAT ABOUT THE "KISS" OF JESUS upon MARY MAGDALENE'S LIPS?

Now we have something we can at least sink our teeth into since a kiss IS [referred to] in the Gospel of Philip (within THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY,) and used previously by Jim Marrs in his book, RULE BY SECRECY, to show that somehow this "proved" that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers. Unfortunately, for anyone who has read THE WHOLE OF THE NAG HAMMADI - as I have, several times, this "deduction" is nothing less than ludicrous! Allow me to explain:

The actual quote used by Brown about this "KISS" comes from the Gospel of Philip, which states, "And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene [...loved] her more than [all] the disciples, [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [...]. The rest of the disciples....They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her?"

Of course, if Mary really were the companion (in the sense of a wife,) the question becomes meaningless...so there must be another reason for "THE KISS" - mustn't there? NOTE: When you see a parenthesis as in the above, it means that there is information missing or illegible in the text, and the information within is the best guess as to what may have been meant, as far as I know.

SO WHAT DO WE KNOW OF THE ABOVE in relation to THE REST OF THE NAG HAMMADI?

First of all, let us see what a real scholar has to say about the word, "companion" to make sure we are on sound footing in our understanding of what is being meant in the sacred text. James Robinson, the general editor of THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, was interviewed by Dan Burstein for "SECRETS..." and he had the following to say about the word on page 99 on the book:

"...it doesn't automatically mean married or unmarried. 'Companion' is not necessarily a sex-related term as it might be construed in our day and age...If one reads the entire Gospel of Philip it becomes clear that the writer disdains physical sex as beastly, literally comparing it to animals. In the early church, a kiss was known as a metaphor for giving birth.... "Regarding designating Mary Magdalene as Jesus' companion, Brown says Aramaic scholars know this means wife. But the Gospel of Philip is in Coptic, translated from Greek, so there is no word in the text for Aramaic scholars to compare."

[[Since Robinson is a scholar on THE NAG HAMMADI texts, I think it is reasonable to surmise that once again - BROWN HAS HIS PEW~PEN dipped IN THE WRONG CHURCH-WELL!]]

As well as reading THE ENTIRE Gospel of Philip, it might have done Dan Brown well to have read the entire NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY so that "THE KISS" could be better understood - if he really were intent on sticking to FACTS; of course, this would have not moved the plot along too nicely. By the way, there are three references in the secret writings of James the Just (also within THE NAG...) that bear on the above insinuations...

JAMES THE JUST was just as important within THE NAG HAMMADI as Mary Magdalene, and the below citations prove why (and yes, Jesus kissed James too!!?!!):

In the GOSPEL OF THOMAS Saying #12 it states, 'The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "Where ever you are, you are to go to James the righteous (just) for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.'

In the APOCRYPHON OF JAMES 16:5 it states, 'And so, not wishing to give them offense, I sent each one to another place.' [This reflects the authority vested in James as per SAYING #12 (above).

Then, in the THE (FIRST) APOCALYPSE OF JAMES 32:5 we read a most reveling thing: 'Therefore your name is "James the Just." You see how you will become sober when you see me. And you stopped this prayer. Now since you are a just man of God, you have embarrassed me AND KISSED ME.' [My emphasis]

And in THE (SECOND) APOCALYPSE OF JAMES 56:15-20 the above is emphasized even more: 'And he (Jesus) kissed my mouth. He took hold of me, saying, "My beloved! Behold, I shall reveal to you those (things) that (neither) [the] heavens nor the archons have known...'

Incidentally, this clearly shows who was to be the head of the Gnostic inner group after Jesus left. [In the novel, Dan Brown had Mary Magdalene serving this leader role, but then again, Brown may not have read the above tractates either, so how would he really know who was leading whom?!?]

SO WHAT IS THE MEANING OF JESUS KISSING? WHAT IS THE CODE AND HOW DOES IT APPLY TO MARY MAGDALENE? To answer this very important question, if you understand the Gnostic gospels, it has to do with the spiritual maturing of ALL OF US, where Mary is the first to enter the SPIRITUAL BRIDAL CHAMBER. This understanding from the Gospel of Philip was best expressed (as commentary) in the below eight page link, by Soror A.L.:

<http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org/Documents/Essays/gospel.htm>

If people like Jim Marrs & now Dan Brown had taken the time to acquaint themselves with these holy concepts as reflected in the above link, I would have had no need to pen this small treatise. Perhaps this was why we can better call attention to this all-important subject, percolating (ironically) from the popular media where now, it can be focused on & addressed properly! [I will just make a few observations from the above link to give the spiritual sojourner a possible thirst for reading the whole link:

[The below excerpt is what I feel is the more proper esoteric understanding of why Jesus kissed both Mary & James the Just:]

"Those who enter the bridal chamber (spiritual metaphor being employed,)have already "made the two one" perhaps, because, like in the Gospel of Thomas, the initiates are already "solitaties." (11,2:106) The more ancient understanding of a "sacred prostitue" was one who was "one-in-herself." In the Gospel of Philip, this is the stage of 'LIVING IN THE SPIRIT'; it is equated with entering the kingdom, which normally earthly men and women cannot enter, unless they re-create the state of the pre-paradisial Fall through the mystery of the bridal chamber. The special relationship between Jesus and Magdalene reflects the relationship between the savior and initiate figures in the gospel, and they are explicitly referred to as 'SPIRITUAL SPOUSES'. (Philip 63:34) This spiritual goal of balancing the complementary relationship between male and female is a psychological one which Carl Jung saw as necessary for individuation. In 'PHILIP', Mary personifies the syzygos (reflecting a pair of celestial beings) of Jesus, whose presence is necessary for the cretion of spiritual offspring. It is in this context that Gnostic scholar Jorunn Buckley sees the special character of the kiss...[where]...The Logos lives in those whom he has kissed, hence the disciples' jealousy! for THEY ARE NOT WORTHY OF THE KISS. My emphasis)

To sum up a portion of Soror's thought in this lengthy but brilliant commentary, I cite a reference later on the link:

"Mary Magdalene, then, is the beloved disciple and the prototype of the perfected soul because, through her favored and unique relationship with Christ, she has entered into the prefect of Adam/Eve, then by becoming a perfected human being, Mary becomes, like Christ, androgynous, a true spiritual being. The Magdalene myth recapitulates the fall of both Sophia and Helen; [of Troy] and in rediscovering her divinity, she becomes a model for the soul who seeks to do the same."

Making the two one, besides being reflected in the New Testament when Jesus said: LET THY EYE BE SINGLE, is also manifested in THE AQUARIAN GOSPEL OF JESUS the CHRIST, transcribed by Levi Dowling in the beginning of the 20th century. In chapter 32 of this book, Levi describes man's condition as a fall (from his first estate) which could easily be interpreted as losing his completeness because of his weakened will. Man now is fragmented (two) and Jesus came to integrate this so man can be brought back to harmony and regain his first estate. As it states in verse 36:

"In yonder kingdom of the soul this carnal evolution is not known, and the great work of master minds is to restore the heritage of man, to bring him back to his estate that he has lost, when he again will live upon the ethers of his native plane."

SO IN CLOSING...I guess we owe Dan Brown a debt of gratitude for "alerting" mankind to this all-important spiritual esoteric dynamic, vis-a-vis Mary Magdalene, who ironically is the bride of Jesus...but she (like what we will become) is the spiritual bride who has become a solitary one, and by entering the bridal chamber, has received the "KISSING CODE" which now allows her to ascend, since her work on this plane is complete! I heartily recommend the reading of both the Gospel of Philip, followed up by Soror's insightful essay, THE MYSTERY OF THE BRIDAL CHAMBER IN THE GOSPEL OF PHILIP, as indicated as above link.

You owe yourself nothing less as you sojourn from the ludicrous fiction of false reality to the spiritual truth of YOUR FUTURE total reality.

bulldog2000@netzero.net

Back to Articles

Copyright © 2000-2008 Eve Frances Lorgen. All Rights Reserved.