Warning: post contains mild spoilers for Dune: Part Two
In the recently released film, Dune: Part Two, there is the central theme of messianism, as there was in the first instalment. This theme is taken from, or influenced by, a range of sources and ideas ancient and modern, and their history of interpretation. Most famously, these include Islamic ideas of the Mahdi and Jewish and Christian messianism.
Without giving too much away about Dune: Part Two, we are presented with different reactions to messianic claims and ideas among characters. These range from scepticism through allegations of manipulation to one scene where a devout belief in Paul Atreides’ messianic status continues unscathed—despite or because of a downplaying or denial of his messiahship. Only true messiahs would deny their status, would they not?
For certain viewers, there are clear echoes of Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979) where messiahship is attributed to Brian by confused or deluded followers despite or because of Brian’s denials. Monty Python were not the first to present messianism in such a way, but they managed to corner the market for a generation.
Monty Python likely got the idea from their reading of critical scholarship on Christian origins during their background research for the film which they discussed on a number of occasions. One of the most influential theories in the study of the Gospels available to them in the 1970s was that of the ‘messianic secret.’ In 1901, William Wrede published Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums and the influential English translation by J. C. G. Greig was published in 1971 under the title, The Messianic Secret.
Wrede’s book generated what became a standard theory in the study of Jesus and the Gospels. Some proponents of the messianic secrecy theory have argued that that the title ‘the Messiah’ does not come from the lips of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke because the historical figure of Jesus never regarded himself as such, at least not in the strong titular sense. It is then argued that the title was a theological device developed by the first written Gospel (Mark), or possibly earlier tradition, to explain why Jesus never said he was the Messiah. In such readings, Mark’s Gospel presents a Jesus who kept his true identity hidden and did not want it revealed until after the resurrection. Put bluntly, this argument claims that identifying Jesus as the Messiah was the creative interpretation of Jesus’ (possibly misguided) followers.
The theory has been much debated with arguments for, against, and somewhere in-between. However we interpret it, that there is some kind of secrecy theme in Mark’s Gospel is difficult to deny. Jesus commands demons to be silent as they know who he is (Mark 1.25, 34; 3.11–12). He asks the recipients of his healings to keep quiet about what has happened (Mark 1.44; 5.43; 7.36; 8.26). He tells his disciples not to tell anyone about elevated claims associated with him (Mark 8.30; 9.9). He teaches disciples in private, and they misunderstand him. Mark’s Jesus even teaches in parables as a secret or as a mystery to confuse outsiders (Mark 4.10–12).
So, ideas about confusion over an elevated, messianic leader are ancient. Even so, for decades they have been refracted through Life of Brian. But the film Dune might be big enough and influential enough to knock Monty Python off their perch and dominate popular understandings of messianism for a generation.
