Bloodline -- The Da Vinci Code Redux

Apparently, there is a new film out called Bloodline which, once again, asserts the same tired claim of the historically vacuous The Da Vinci Code that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. The same tired characters are presented and the same result is found -- nothing much.

While I don't have time at this moment to give further thoughts on this silly documentary and the countless reasons (most already well-stated in response to claims of The Da Vinci Code, I did want to point out something about the messenger -- Bloodline's director, Bruce Burgess -- that gives reasons to doubt his credulity: he is a person who has previously made other equally unbelievable documentaries. According to Newsbusters.org:

Over a three day stretch, ABC devoted almost 15 minutes of air-time to a documentary filmmaker who asserts in his movie "Bloodline" that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a massive hoax perpetrated on humanity. Additionally, on Friday's "Nightline," reporter Elizabeth Vargas left out any mention of the bizarre interests of the film's director, Bruce Burgess. He's directed and written documentaries on Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, Area 51 and a secretive look at a U.S. government's supposed cover-up of the alien landings at Roswell.

Wouldn't it be relevant to know that Burgess seems to be fascinated with every weird conspiracy imaginable? (And hasn't the mainstream media mocked bloggers for not being restrained journalists? How serious is Bigfoot and the the subject of the Bermuda Triangle?)

Yup, whenever I see a conspiracy argument that Jesus' death and resurrection was faked by the disciples, I have to admit that, in my mind, I am listening to someone telling me about alien abductions. I always ask this question: "What was the point to the cover-up? What did these Jewish disciples (who could be stoned for claiming that Jesus was God, and, in fact, were persecuted) gain from pretending that Jesus had resurrected? Did they get money? Did they get a more comfortable life?"

Really, give me a break. The Da Vinci Code was a joke, historically speaking, and Bloodline is simply The Da Vinci Code redux.


========
Note: I edited this piece on Wednesday May 14, 2008, to correct the title of the documentary from "Bloodlines" to the correct "Bloodline" in response to a comment. I certainly don't claim perfection, and I simply added an "s" to the title because it was "stuck in my head" that way. The commentor who pointed it out was very critical claiming that this small error showed I didn't know what I was talking about. I would challenge the commentor to tell me exactly how it makes a difference to what I say that I called it "Bloodlines" by mistake. Regardless of my mistaken title, it is the Da Vinci Code all over. Its major addition to the Da Vinci Code myth is merely to add a tomb found in France as further evidence that Jesus was secreted to France. I have not written further on this because I know another CADRE member is planning to do so. But my point still stands: tell me what benefit anyone hoped to gain at the time of this supposed conspiracy to pretend Jesus was resurrected, and the benefit the earliest followers (i.e., the church) gained from following the belief that Jesus was God. The answer is: nothing.

Da Vinci Code in Reverse

Just when all of the false information presented about the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in The Da Vinci Code is finally beginning to fade, someone has decided to look at The Last Supper painting from a different angle: backwards.

According to Good knight! New images found in Da Vinci's 'Last Supper'?, a computer analyst has discovered that if you reverse the image of Da Vinci's The Last Supper and superimpose the image over the original painting you find some, shall we say, interesting changes to the painting.

Slavisa Pesci claims to have discovered new images in the 15th mural in the dining hall of Milan’s Santa Maria delle Grazie church by superimposing a reverse image on the original image.

When doing so, Pesci said he observed, for example, that the two figures on either end of the long table appear to become knights, and that another figure appears to be holding an infant.

"It came to mind to scan ’The Last Supper’ and print it on transparent paper, then superimpose it in reverse on the original image. The result is a new painting, with other figures," Pesci said today at a news conference.

Exactly which other "figure appears to be holding an infant"? Naturally, in keeping with the conspiracy beliefs that fueled the entire DaVinci Code nonsense, the effeminate character that has been historically identified as the Apostle John, but which The DaVinci Code identified as really being Mary Magdalene, is the other "figure" carrying a baby! As noted in A new flipping da Vinci code?:

Just as predictably, it has triggered a new conspiracy theory. According to Mr Pesci, a woman on Christ's left appears to be cradling a baby – and although he made no suggestion this could be Jesus's child, his theory has sent the Net into a frenzy.

(Another article on the "discovery" can be found here.)

Actually, since we're going to be talking conspiracy theories, I think that focusing on the other "figure" holding an infant and it's possible connection with the old "Jesus secretly married and had a love child by Mary Magdalene" theory misses a much more important point. Take a look more closely at the super-imposed painting which was published as part of the Metro.co.uk article, immediately below.


Notice the figures to the left of the the Apostle John/Mary Magdalene. Are they kissing? Does this confirm the "Secret Mark" theory that Jesus was really gay? And what about Jesus himself? Notice that he looks very much like one of the multi-armed Hindu gods complete with aura? Kali (pictured at right), perhaps? Or perhaps Vishnu? What about the fact that, with the exception of Jesus, there are two of every person at the Last Supper? Is this showing knowledge on behalf of Leonardo DaVinci that Jesus and his followers were really Manichæistic in their beliefs? Was DaVinci really telling us that Jesus and his followers were actually dualists? Think of the possibilities!

This is simply absurd. Even supposing that DaVinci -- genius though he was -- was somehow smart enough to be able to calculate in his mind what the painting would look like backwards and superimposed over the other, this is an absolute stretch. I think that the thoughts of Alessandro Vezzosi, a Leonardo expert, are very apropos:

While he had not yet seen the presentation, he noted that computers lend themselves to any conceivable alterations and that some have inaccurately held that the artist’s famed "Mona Lisa" is actually a self-portrait.

When will the madness stop?