Notes from Pamela

Dear Readers:

Just a note to CONTESTANTS: Thanks for your interest! I plan to read all of the entries as soon as I return from the next phase of my book tour (see www.booktour.com)and will publish the winners at latest by July 8th. The ones that I've read so far are very moving--I'm looking forward to returning home, putting my feet up, and reading all of them. If you're interested in how book tours work, and tips for writers that I've learned along the way, I've been blogging the tour on the New Orleans,Louisiana web site, which is www.nola.com (click on blogs, then on Pamela Ewen or Faulkner), and also on www.myspace.com/pamelaewen. My husband, Jimmy, calls this "driving Miss Pamela" -- we're having a great time meeting readers and people who work in bookstores as we travel around the country promoting The Moon in the Mango Tree. As you may know, this book is based on the true story of my grandmother's life in the 1920's. I hope you've had time to read it, and if so - hope you LOVE it!!

In the 1920's my grandmother was a suffragette, a strong and independent woman. This was a time when women had just won the vote--but still were not permitted to serve on juries in most states. My grandmother (as told in Mango Tree) faced the difficult choice between love and her career, a choice many women face today. From my years practicing law I know how hard this is, and yet, a strange thing seems to be happening in our country these days. The most recent US census indicates that more and more working mothers are opting out of the workforce to stay home, or return home. The Oprah Winfrey Show recently focused on this hot issue when Elizabeth Vargas resigned her position as co-anchor on ABC World News Tonight, saying that she realized that she could no longer hop on a plane to go across the globe to cover a story at the drop of a hat, leaving her husband and baby behind. And Harvard Business School reports that only 38% of female graduates in child raising years are now in the work place full time. What's going on? Paula Zahn asked the question on CNN - is this a trend? There's no question that today the opportunity is there for women to have it all--but Leslie Stahl said this on Sixty Minutes not long ago: "Could it really be that this generation of women, the first to achieve success without having to fight for it, is now walking away, willingly, and without regrets? Opting Out?"

So what do you think, ladies - home or workplace, or can we have both? Gentlemen, do you want to weigh in? Can we have it all, knowing that many of us have to compete with those who have no family limitations, working long hours, weekends, holidays? And if so, are we saying that we can give 100% to each? And do you want to do that? Let me know - I'd like to hear what you're thinking. You can contact me through this web site - I read all emails and will answer them. This is an interesting question for everyone - young women just facing the issue; baby-boomers who paved the way; older women who remember how it was not to have the opportunity, or to be the only woman competing at the time.

The heroes of nine-eleven:

explain the courage of hundreds of heroes on 9/11? What drove firefighters, police, and others into collapsing buildings to help total strangers, knowing that they'd likely not get out alive? What caused people inside to stop to help others they didn't know when mere seconds counted for their own lives? Every one of these people had a choice, they could have moved on to save themselves; could have looked the other way and no one would have blamed them, or been the wiser. And these heroic choices were made by these hundreds of people in an instant, with no time for reasoning or reflection, no expectation of benefit or reward. They seem almost instinctive.

I believe that the heroic acts we witnessed on 9/11 are evidence that universal principals of good and evil exist to guide us in our choices, independent of culture, emotions, and even reasoning. Many powerful opinion leaders in our country today believe otherwise--that good and evil are determined by each culture. What's wrong for people in one part of the world might be right for those in another. Moral relativism: should we accept that? It's an important issue. In a recent column, David Brooks pointed out that the conflict among cultures over what is right and wrong is driving events in the war on terrorism right now.

It's time for reflection. Often our thinking is confused by the way these issues are presented through entertainment, celebrity, and "experts" with loads of personal charisma. Walk Back The Cat explores that fact. We've been witnesses to the best and worst in human nature. Our moral choices in the next few years will result in actions that have consequences for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. Instead of focusing on weakness and moral gray areas, let's focus our energy on the strength and courage that made this country great. Let's have an uncommon dialogue about our traditions and values and purpose, and about who we really are.

The DaVinci Code Do you enjoy books like The DaVinci Code, but feel alienated by the rants against Christianity that they contain? Information is only as good as the source. Let's check Dan Brown's primary sources-the Gnostic Gospels named for Thomas and Mary.

No one knows who wrote those books. Information coming from unknown sources, derived from other unknown sources, written at a date removed hundreds of years from the event itself is unreliable. In a courtroom, this shoddy evidence would be inadmissible to prove an allegation. It reminds me of the old telephone game-remember that? We sit in a circle and one person tells a secret to the next. By the time the secret is revealed by the last person in the circle, it bears little resemblance to the original secret. The greater the distance between the last person and the source (the first person in the circle) the more speculative and unreliable the information becomes.

So if you love reading books like The DaVinci Code, but are disturbed by the claims in the book (or others like it) that Christianity is a fraud, remember the telephone game and take a look at the timeline comparison below:

Dating for New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John	Dating for the primary Gnostic Gospels relied upon in The DaVinciCode: The Gospels of Thomas and Mary.
30-33 A.D. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth occurred.	30-33 A.D. - Same.
33-36 A.D. The first recorded reference to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (as described in the four Gospels), Because of the primitive, Aramaic language used in a letter of Paul in the New Testament, this reference is dated to 33-36 A.D. The letters themselves are dated to 54 - 56 A.D. (1 Cor. 15:4-7).	33-36 A.D. - No evidence.
33-68/70 A.D. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written during this period. The date 68 A.D. is an "end date", that is, the last possible date for any of these Gospels to be written because Jerusalem was under siege by 68 A.D., and destroyed in 70 A.D. By the reasoning of many scholars, like J.A.T. Robinson, it is not logical to believe these Gospels could have been written after that date because every detail set forth in the books are based on the social, cultural, and economic background of the period prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the entire Levitical system, not after. The four Gospels do not address the siege and destruction by Rome, nor do they mention the deaths of Peter, James, and Paul. So the Gospels were written within the generation that Jesus lived, by people with first-hand, personal knowledge of the events. These books were in wide circulation by 68 A.D. as indicated by papyrus fragments held in several museums. Some of the fragments, have been matched word for word, stroke for stoke, against the earliest complete Gospel manuscripts held by museums.	33-68/70 A.D. - No evidence.
During this period people who taught that Jesus rose from the dead as described in the Gospel-his followers-were tortured and killed for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead and was divine. Peter was crucified. Paul and James were slain by the sword. Stephen was stoned for the belief, as was James, the brother of Jesus. John was banished.
67 A.D. Nero created a circus in Rome, using Christians as human candles for amusement at night. The Roman, Tacitus (55A.D. - 117), described it in his writings. But think of this: These martyred followers of Jesus were a check on the truth of those books; many were witnesses to the events recorded in the Gospels. Many people die for what they believe to be true-but no one willingly dies for what they know to be a lie.	67 A.D. - No evidence.
100 A.D. - Around the end of the first century, Pliny (the Younger) wrote to Emperor Trajan, stating that followers of Jesus were always given the chance to 'recant' their belief that he was divine before they were put to death.	100. A.D. - No evidence.
115 A.D. Ignatius, an early Christian Bishop in Antioch, and a student of the Apostle, John, taught that the crucifixion and resurrection occurred exactly as described in the Gospels. A popular leader, the Romans did not want to martyr him. But he refused to recant and died, torn apart by wild animals in the arena. The truth of the resurrection and divinity of Jesus was his "dying declaration."	115 A.D. - No evidence.
130 A.D. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, a student of the Apostle John, wrote this: "Matthew compiled the logia in the [Aramaic] speech, and everyone translated them as best he could." And more: "Mark…the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he [Peter] remembered." Peter approved, referring to Mark in letters as his "spiritual son". Numerous other references exist from the end of the first century to first half of second century naming the authors of the Gospels specifically as being Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.	130 A.D. - No evidence.
140-180 A.D. Growing consensus in Christian church on the primary authority of Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is evidenced by numerous writings. Justin Martyr and Tertullian both refer to these four Gospels, as well as to the Acts of the Apostles, letters of Paul, 1 John, and Revelation as accepted truth in the church. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were accepted as having been authored by people who knew Jesus, as follows: Matthew and John, were eyewitnesses to his crucifixion and resurrection. Mark wrote the words of Peter, with Peter's approval, and Luke, had personal knowledge of some events but not all, and wrote a careful and detailed investigative report that corroborates the other three.	140-180 A.D. - Gnostic writings begin around this time, although the dates assigned by scholars to the Gospels of Thomas and Mary vary. Most scholars date them from this period on through the third century. Ironically, scholar, Philip Comfort (The Origin of the Bible), reports that a writing known as the Gospel of Truth, probably an early Gnostic writing, refers to a compilation of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul, Hebrews and the Book of Revelation, indicating that this portion of the New Testament was in existence at that time. The Gospels of Thomas and Mary were found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945 and are contained in a fourth-century collection of Coptic documents. The Gospel of Thomas is written in Coptic, not Greek or Aramaic.
180 A.D. Irenaeus, Bishop of Gaul (student of Polycarp, disciple of John), refutes Gnostics as heretics, stating that Matthew (writing in his own dialect while Peter and Paul were in Rome), Mark (as interpreter and disciple of Peter), Luke (a companion of Paul), and John (the disciple of the Lord) wrote the four Gospels under their own names, indicating that they were recognized by that date as inspired and authoritative, with unique status in the church. Irenaeus wrote that the Apostle John lived until the reign of the emperor Trajan, beginning in 98 A.D.	180 A.D. - Gnostic writings continue and are considered by Christians as heretical.
325 A.D. Constantine becomes the first Christian Emperor of Rome and orders Bibles to be compiled containing Old and New Testaments, including the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. His decision is based upon the prior acceptance of these Gospels as established and primary authority for the Christian Church, a consensus that began building with the words of Paul around 33-36AD, and was crystallized by the mid-second century.	325 A.D. - The DaVinci Code states that Constantine collated the Bible as we know it today, including the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John for political reasons, and that he discarded the more truthful Gnostic gospels. Until this point in time, "Teabing" says in the book, Jesus was viewed by his followers as "a mortal prophet", a mere man; but (Teabing tells Sophie) Constantine put forth the elevation of Jesus to divine status at the "Council of Nicaea" in order to unify Rome and consolidate a new power base (the Vatican).

As you can see from this timeline, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
record the personal observations of people who knew Jesus and witnessed events.
Contrary to Teabing's lecture to Sophie in Chapter Five of The DaVinci Code,
the Gospels of Thomas and Mary were written from 100 to 150 years
after the events they describe (at the earliest), by unknown authors. By the
time the Gospels of Thomas and Mary were written, the Gospels
of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had long been accepted as primary and authoritative
in the Christian church. Long before Constantine became Emperor, the divinity
of Jesus was an established and fundamental belief in the Christian church.

"Secrets" revealed in books like The DaVinci Code
are fun and entertaining, but the Gnostic gospels are nothing more than second-hand
speculation. Important conclusions should be based upon facts, not speculation.
Unlike the cohesive and detailed canonical Gospels, the Gnostic books set forth
an inconsistent view of Jesus and his message. Here's one example that The
DaVinci Code conveniently overlooked. The final verse of the Gospel of
Thomas quotes Jesus as saying this: "Let Mary leave us, for women are
not worthy of life."

Does that sound like Jesus of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke,
or John?