|
“I think there is no sense in forming an opinion where there is no evidence to form it on.
If you haven’t read The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown’s controversial thriller, the central theme can be summarized in a single quote:
When the implications of this devastating news finally began to sink in, I was shaken and confused. How did the famous author know my dad? What seems clear, though, is that he’s making quite a statement. When did you last read a novel that sounded like a propaganda piece designed to convert you to the “truth”? According to The Da Vinci Code, the truth is that Jesus wasn’t celibate after all, but had a wife and daughter. How did the author discover this? He read it in a book. The name of the book was Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and it proposed the marriage as a “hypothesis” back in 1982. This is an interesting choice of words when you consider that synonyms for hypothesis are: an assumption, suspicion, guess, suggestion, fancy, hunch and stab {As in - The authors took a "stab" at the question: Was Jesus married?). Who was the lucky lady in all this? It was Mary Magdalene; Mr. Brown seems positive about that. We're not doubting it, mind you, but just out of curiosity, how can he be so sure? You guessed it, he read it in the same book. Apparently, all information is reliable if it comes from a book.... just so long as the book isn't The Bible. Holy Blood, Holy Grail was an interesting read, especially the parts showing that virtually all the information came from a gentleman who thought he was The King of France. His name was Pierre Plantard, but his mental status was never really in question; he was definitely bonkers. Unstable for most of his life, Pierre only calmed down in 1993, when a French judge made him promise to “stop all this nonsense” about grandmasters and The Priory of Sion. Now if only someone would tell that to Dan Brown. In court, Plantard admitted under oath that his claims to the French throne and a number of other absurdities, were all just a fantasy he dreamed-up for gullible people like the authors of Holy Blood. It’s reported that when they were first granted an audience with the King, they affirmed the gravity of the situation by addressing Plantard (in all seriousness) as “Your Majesty.” This may sound like a fantasy, but it’s all there in black and white. A good website for documentation is priory-of-sion.com (don’t forget the dashes). There you can look over documents relating to Plantard's legal woes, which involved fraud, extortion and doing something illegal with a minor. Prior to his life-changing revelation that he was The King of France, it seems Pierre lacked direction and landed in prison a few times. When news-magazine 60 Minutes investigated whether the Priory of Sion wasn't simply a hoax, the French police confirmed their suspicions by diplomatically saying, "Mr. Plantard was not a serious person". The Discovery Channel agreed and declared The Priory a "fictional organization", totally undermining the historical claims in The DVC. Even the judge in the Holy Blood plagiarism case ruled it was a clever fraud. Nevertheless, Dan Brown is greatly indebted to Pierre. Thanks to "his royal highnesses" over-active imagination, Mr. Brown now has enough money to purchase a medium-sized country in South America. Life can be very strange. - Was Jesus Married? Possibly.... But What Are You Really Up To? - The idea that Jesus was married may be a bit unorthodox, but with movies like The Last Temptation of Christ being old hat now, there's little chance it would’ve created any controversy. No doubt that's why the author of The Da Vinci Code didn't stop there. Instead, the hypothetical marriage served as a launching pad for claims that were a bit more explosive. For instance, the book maintains that to cover-up Christ’s marriage to Mary Magdalene, the Church confiscated Bibles on three continents to write her out of the picture. But if that’s the case, why is she still in there? And especially in such crucial roles? Dan Brown claimed twice in his book that those Catholic fiends “even forbid Mary’s name to be spoken.” He must just make this stuff up, considering that the Catholic Church has made her a Saint, named cathedrals after her, commissioned countless works of art and celebrated her feast days for nearly two thousand years. The early church fathers christened her, “The apostle to the apostles,” because she took the message of Christ’s resurrection to his male disciples who were still in hiding! Was Mary Magdalene a great disciple? Without a doubt. To round out the negative implications of a "married Jesus" for us, the author takes it for granted, like others before him, that being a family man is somehow incompatible with deity, or even being the messiah. Therefore, those ideas must have been invented later by, guess who... those lying Catholics again. But the main thing here is that it's "theologian" Dan Brown who insists that a married Jesus could not have been the Son of God. He is the authority on married-messiahs who claims that Christ could not have been God's appointed messenger with a woman in the picture. Mr. Brown is the world-class expert on everyone else's religion who has decided that a wife would completely undermine the Christian faith. Then he turns around and insists that these are the beliefs of the Church! But we have yet to come across an orthodox Christian in the past or present, who has said anything like that. Yet hardly anyone seems to have noticed this huge flaw. Anyway, in a final leap of faithlessness, The Da Vinci Code claims that since the Bible is a fraud, so too are the religion(s) based on it. It appears this book is an equal-opportunity offender. Most of this is presented in a plausible way, especially to those who haven’t spent much time studying church history, which is almost everyone. Many readers who pick up The Da Vinci Code are walking into an ambush without knowing it. A similar mismatch is played out in the story itself. The plot involves two male authority figures, Langdon and Teabing, who relentlessly indoctrinate a naïve, young woman named Sophie. At times, their methods border on brainwashing. She freely admits she knows nothing at all about the issues involved and blindly accepts even the most simple-minded explanations on faith. Sophie’s second-rate status is painfully clear in a scene where Langdon beats her to the punch in solving a complex puzzle, even though it deals with her area of expertise. She’s left kicking herself over not being able to rise to the occasion. It’s important to realize that both Sophie and the reader are at the mercy of these “experts” throughout the book. Consider
on what evidence we are expected to believe that Jesus had a family.
According to Langdon, ancient scrolls are hidden inside the missing
casket of Mary Magdalene. They supposedly tell the “real” story of
Christ, but are so elusive you’d probably have an easier time finding
the Loch Ness Monster. The plot revolves around the frantic search for
these documents, the contents of which will destroy Christianity. In
the following passage, Sophie is asking Langdon if the documents should
be made public if found:
There
is an enormous difference indeed. Things are starting to look mighty
grim for the Church here. If you’re inclined to dismiss these documents
simply because The Da Vinci Code is a novel, consider the author’s assertion on the page before the Prologue: FACT: All descriptions of … documents in this novel are accurate. Rest assured, we will get to the bottom of all these claims and accusations. Is this threat a bluff, or something to take seriously? The answer is in chapter four, but here is a hint. Would these documents have a name if they weren’t real? That’s a rhetorical question the author is hoping you will take for granted. No one can be deceived without their permission. For now, let’s fire up our spin-detectors and see what the author is up to. The easiest way to get in the habit of evaluating things critically, is to always assume someone may be trying to manipulate you (even now). One tactic used in the preceding passage (Pg 341), about the New Testament being false, is the “pregnant pause.” The intention here is to make Langdon appear understanding and compassionate. His reluctance to reveal the devastating news that your religion is a lie shows how sensitive he is. But, he’ll manage to tell you somehow because he has an obligation to the truth. After all, we must face facts, right? The pause also smuggles in the idea that the information in these documents must be pretty powerful stuff for him to be so hesitant. The term “scientific evidence” is also calculated to make the records sound impressive, although it gives the author away as a bit naïve about the nature of science. Little tricks like this should be a red flag that the author’s case may be weak and to watch for more of the same. So, what evidence does The Da Vinci Code
actually present for the grail theory: that Jesus and Mary Magdalene
were married and their descendents are still with us (such as "King
Pierre")? In the book, we are constantly reminded that the evidence
supporting this claim is substantial. It better be, because the entire
plot rests on it. If the assertion falls flat for lack of evidence,
then everything else comes tumbling down with it, just like Mark
Twain’s boneless man. So let’s attempt to answer the question right off
by taking a close look at what Mr. Brown has. But keep in mind that
he's a master of insinuation, and when he doesn’t have anything solid
(which is 99% of the time), he’ll start with the fancy footwork. What
follows is pretty much everything that's presented in The Da Vinci Code to support the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were man and wife: “Till Death Do Us Part.” - Court is Now in Session - (Let the Brainwashing Begin) We begin on page 239 of the novel. Sophie is trying to follow the tortured logic of Langdon, the "symbologist." He is attempting to convince her that the mythical "holy grail" of King Arthur fame, is actually Mary Magdalene. It doesn't seem to faze Langdon that Camelot and the grail are both literary inventions. According to the theory, by carrying the child of Christ in her womb, Mary was the "vessel" that carried his holy blood; hence, she is the holy grail. That, in a nut-shell, is the grail-theory.
At any rate, if you’ve read The Da Vinci Code,
you know they are referring to Mary Magdalene in this passage. But this
isn't the Mary Magdalene you’re probably familiar with. The humble,
devoted disciple who was the first to see Christ after his resurrection
is no more. In her place we have a pagan deity, a mother-goddess worthy
of praise and adoration to celebrate the rediscovery of the divine
feminine. This is the inevitable outcome, I suppose, of believing that
she and Christ were married. Only a full-fledged goddess would make a
suitable wife for a god, right? Wrong, because as you’ll see shortly, The Da Vinci Code
is also on a mission to strip Christ of his divinity. So, just when you
think things are beginning to make sense, a canister of tear gas comes
through the window, and you have to run screaming into the night. - Divine Intervention - Next Teabing calls a surprise witness to the stand. He makes an appeal to an unimpeachable source whom no one would dare question:
This one is pretty funny. Despite repeated attempts to demote Jesus throughout The Da Vinci Code,
Christ’s deity lingers on here with the use of a capital 'H' for
“Himself." What this passage actually means is anyone’s guess, because
it is never explained or mentioned again. There certainly isn’t
anything in the Bible about Mary Magdalene being a “Holy Grail.” It’s
possible that this is something Jesus told the author directly. Or,
maybe Mr. Brown thinks he actually is Christ. If that’s the case, he
has a lot of competition on the internet. The bottom line is that
there’s no record of Jesus ever claiming Mary Magdalene was the Holy
Grail. - Tell That Painting to Stop Shouting! - Moving on to page 244, we find Teabing propagandizing Sophie once again:
Now Prosecutor Teabing is getting warmed up and starting to present his case. In opening arguments you can say whatever you like, so he insists the marriage is a matter of "historical record" (Most likely, this is a misprint. He probably meant to say “hysterical record”). Throughout the book, Sophie’s initial reactions to all these unusual claims are always right-on. Here she exclaims, “I beg your pardon?” As in, “You wanna run that by me again?” Sophie looked to Langdon for help, but he was busy staring at the ceiling and whistling "Yes, We Have No Bananas". At least he didn’t nod his approval like he usually does and say, “Yes, Sophie, the evidence for this is supercalifragilistic expialidocious!" Notice how the marriage theory has suddenly been elevated to the status of a "fact" and Da Vinci's painting is “shouting it out!” This brings us to our first tiny scrap of evidence: Leonardo’s masterpiece, The Last Supper. According to The Da Vinci Code,
John the beloved disciple apparently had a previous engagement, so he
wasn’t in the picture. Instead, we have eleven disciples and Mary
Magdalene, who is supposedly sitting next to Jesus. Not to be rude, but
if a prosecutor attempted to prove, in court, that someone was married
by pulling out a five hundred year old oil painting, I suspect his
opponent would get a huge grin on his face; and this, just before the
bailiff escorted the prosecutor out on the judge’s orders. Not that The Da Vinci Code
interpretation of the painting isn’t compelling, though. We’re told
that if we imagine Jesus and Mary as “compositional elements” rather
than as people, the letter "M" will “leap out at you.” When Sophie asks
why the "M" is there, Teabing says, “nobody is certain.” Well, how can
anyone deny now that Da Vinci was shouting out the “fact” that Christ
was married in The Last Supper? In
addition, the art experts won’t concede that there is a woman in the
painting. They insist the person next to Jesus actually is the disciple
John. He was always painted with feminine features and seated next to
Christ during that period. The question of whether that is John or Mary
in The Last Supper is quite important. We’ll return to it in the next
chapter and settle the matter by letting Leonardo speak for himself . Also, notice that the author is up to his tricks again. Check out the word “troubling” in the quote from Pg. 244. Like the word “fact”, this is yet another attempt to influence the reader without actually providing evidence. Like the “early editors,” Teabing finds it "troubling" that he’s confronted with such a harsh reality about Jesus; one that’s sure to demoralize millions. He’s saddled with the heavy burden of knowing that Christ was just an ordinary guy and can’t get anyone into heaven after all. Also, the “pregnant pause” makes another appearance; this time to show how kind and sensitive Teabing is (What a great couple of guys, eh?). He, too, feels terrible about having to divulge information that will destroy Christianity. However, he’ll do it because it’s for our own good. How very noble. This is actually quite hypocritical. In many other places, Teabing is beside himself with glee when revealing information that supposedly undermines the Christian faith! Not
that the use of these subtle literary devices is bogus. On the
contrary, Mr. Brown is a master at using the power of suggestion. He is
an extraordinary salesman; but a salesman nonetheless. Soon, you should
start to suspect that the power of suggestion is pretty much all there
is to The Da Vinci Code. The meager "evidence" presented in
the book doesn’t even begin to justify the conclusions reached. The
point here is that these subtle forms of manipulation can be effective,
and yet have nothing to do with the issues in question. Corporations
don't spend billions of dollars every year on advertising because we
aren't influenced by it. The reality is, we’re quite predictable and
Madison Avenue has it down to an art. The only way to outsmart them is
to pay close attention to the tricks being used. - Thou Shalt Condemn the Bachelor (The Commandment No One Ever Heard Of) Next stop is page 245. Sophie is unimpressed by the M's in the Last Supper and lets her "teachers" know it:
This is the evidence? Jesus must have been married because it makes more sense? Excuse me, I mean “infinitely” more sense. To whom, exactly? This is almost as worthless as the thing with the “M”! Celibacy was not condemned by Jewish custom. That’s a fringe claim that was shot down long ago. It was based on some anti-celibacy quotations in the rabbinical writings which came well after Christ lived. These were the private, non-binding opinions of a few rabbis. It would be similar to advice offered in a book by a church pastor today. No matter how good it sounded, all Christians wouldn’t be obligated to obey it. The rabbinical writings did not carry the same weight as The Bible. In addition, the notion that rabbi's were required to marry is mistaken and irrelevant. There are examples of celibate rabbis in the same rabbinic writings that discourage the practice. The emphasis on marriage was a Talmudic tradition, and Jesus often had little regard for rules based on the “traditions of men” which he said “nullified the commandments of God.” The assertion that Jesus was an ordained rabbi makes little sense either. If that were true, the religious establishment wouldn’t have considered him an outsider. They repeatedly questioned his right to teach, asking, “By what authority do you say and do these things?” How did Jesus respond? By appealing to John The Baptist and his miracles as God's stamp of approval, not some hapless ordination by a college of rabbis. Consider the marital status of prophets. Two thousand years ago, religion was central to all cultures in the Middle East and prophets like Jesus and John the Baptist, men set apart for service to God, were well-respected figures. According to the New Testament, John lived in the Judean wilderness on locusts and wild honey and wore clothes made of camel’s hair. That would’ve been a difficult life for a woman (or a man). In addition, we know that John's followers took responsibility for his burial, not a wife or son as custom would dictate. It’s almost certain he was single. But how could he be if celibacy was a crime? The historian Josephus and the Bible both agree that the Jewish people held John in high regard. There's only one explanation: celibacy wasn't condemned. The prophet Jeremiah is another example. God instructed him not to marry and have children (Jeremiah 16). In addition, Jewish tradition holds Moses to be the quintessential celibate. Some have believed that after standing in the presence of God on Mt. Horeb, he abstained from marital relations, much like Gandhi, who was also married but celibate. Whether Moses was celibate or not, isn’t important. The tradition establishes that celibacy was not dishonorable. Next we have the apostle Paul, who was a rabbi and a Pharisee. He lived at the time of Christ, and knew the laws and customs of his people inside and out. Paul wasn’t married and sometimes advised others to remain single as well. He never would have done that if celibacy was condemned by the Jews! It would have hindered the spread of the new faith, especially among his fellow countrymen who already viewed Christians with suspicion. Also, when Paul defended his right to have a wife in his letter to the Corinthians, why did he mention the other apostles who were married, but leave out Jesus? If Christ were married, that would've settled the matter. Even Jesus spoke about celibacy, saying it was a positive thing if done for the right reasons. If
the previous examples are not enough, here are a few thousand more -
the Essenes, the Jewish sect commonly linked with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
They were celibate monks who lived near the Dead Sea, but many others
also lived in cities throughout Judea. We know the Essenes weren’t
condemned for their celibacy, because the Jewish historian Josephus,
who also lived during the first century, spoke very highly of them. And
there was yet another Jewish sect, called The Therapeutae, that had
much the same profile. They were a monastic order lauded by the
historian Philo for their ascetic lifestyle, which included celibacy.
They were also known for their opposition to slavery. The final argument offered in The Da Vinci Code on this question is voiced by Langdon. He wins the grand prize for the argument most likely to have been concocted while under anesthesia. According to our lovable symbologist, if Jesus had not been married, the Bible would have certainly given some explanation for his “unnatural state.” Hold it, right there. I seem to recall this Harvard graduate insisting that the New Testament is "false testimony" and can’t be trusted. Now he wants to commandeer it to bail-out his sinking grail theory? I'm sorry, you can’t have it both ways, Langdon, old boy. This is an unconscious admission by the author that the New Testament is a reliable document. The reason for such a huge gaff is that Dan Brown stole this argument from a minister named Phipps, who actually was a Christian that trusted the Bible. But when you put those words in the mouth of a pagan like Langdon, it becomes a contradiction! But it's not just Langdon who attempts to use the Bible as evidence Christ was married. Many of Dan Brown's fringe-group colleagues quote passages of scripture that supposedly confirm the theory. But Mr. Brown puts them in their place by saying that a married Jesus "makes infinitely more sense than the biblical view of Christ as a bachelor." He has just unwittingly confessed that the Bible does depict Jesus as being celibate and that authors like Margaret Starbird are out to lunch! Also in that same Da Vinci Code passage, we see Teabing is again claiming the Jesus - Mary Magdalene union to be part of the “historical record,” and we still haven’t seen anything even remotely resembling solid evidence. Well,
get ready, because here we go. Next up is the one piece of evidence
they do have, and like a dog with his one bone, they guard it
jealously. Prepare to meet the Gnostics. Mr. Brown would like to
convince the world that the Gnostics were the “true” Christians and
their writings can be trusted. According to the author, these are the
books that were removed from the Bible because they implied that Jesus
was married. Let’s see if he hits the mark, or misses it, with this
shot. By the way, “missing the mark” is the literal definition of the
word “sin.” - The Gnostic Gospels: Round One - (Introducing Gnostic Jesus) When
last we left Teabing, he was dogmatically expounding on his doctrine of
a married Jesus. He eventually pulls out a copy of The Gnostic Gospels,
a book dealing with codices found in Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945. They
contain esoteric philosophy that bears little resemblance to anything
in the New Testament. Even the term “gospel” is a misnomer since they
are almost never concerned with the events of Christ’s life. Instead
they contain cryptic and disjointed sayings that are attributed to the
“spirit” of Jesus, which the Gnostics believed hovered around long
after his death. Since these writings are the work of the Gnostics, and
the Jesus they portray is quite different from the one in the Bible, we
have a new teacher to introduce to this discussion: “Gnostic Jesus.” We will look at some of the more entertaining Gnostic writings later on, but for now we want to concentrate on The Gospel of Philip, which contains the controversial passage that some believe implies that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. This book was written in the third or fourth century A.D. and in no way represents the “earliest Christian records,” as proclaimed in The Da Vinci Code. The idea that this book was once part of the Bible, but secretly removed, is just the author’s way of creating a conspiracy where one does not exist. These writings were never anything more than a curiosity to orthodox Christians, with the exception of those who were taken in by them. They offer precious little in the way of spiritual insight. The Da Vinci Code is a compendium of misinformation and nowhere is that clearer than when it deals with ancient writings. We pick up the action on page 245 with Teabing gleefully preparing to play the one and only ace in his hand:
What are all the empty brackets about in this incredibly important passage? Where the brackets appear, the words are missing because of holes in the manuscript. The truth is, we’re not sure what it says. However, one can make an educated guess based on the context and number of letters that would fit, but obviously there is a great potential for bias to creep in with this practice, as in, “kiss her [often].” For all we know, it said exactly the opposite. As
you might have guessed, the proponents of the “married Jesus” theory
are only too happy to fill in the missing words for us. So the passage,
as it appears in The Da Vinci Code, looks quite different.
The author has even removed the brackets; probably so the reader won’t
start asking uncomfortable questions. And Dan Brown never even bothers
to mention the fact that we don’t really know what this passage says!
Sounds like he’s suppressing information, doesn’t it? Can't prosecutors
get disbarred for withholding evidence? Let’s see how damning the
altered paragraph really is:
The
first thing to consider, of course, is that if you insert the word
“cheek” or "forehead" in place of mouth, the passage ceases to be
controversial. Changing “often” to “gently” has a similar effect on the
overall meaning. As will be shown later, this “gospel” was not written
by Philip, the original apostle, but rather by an anonymous Gnostic who
lived in Egypt, two to three hundred years after Christ. So how would
he (the true writer) know intimate details like the ones cited in this
passage? According to Professor James Robinson, the general editor of
The Nag Hammadi Library, who oversaw the translation of these documents:
Contempt for sex, marriage and procreation are hallmarks of Gnostic philosophy, so it seems rather unlikely that this author would be highlighting a sensual act. Many scholars interpret this as being a spiritual allegory, something like The "Song of Solomon" in the Bible. Professor Robinson goes on to say:
For the skeptic hoping to dismiss the good professor’s testimony because of some personal bias, you’ll not be pleased to find out he is a member of the Jesus Seminar, which itself has a reputation for skepticism. He is a most remarkable man.
If you still think this verse from the Gospel of Philip implies Christ
was married, there is something else that makes such an interpretation
impossible. As mentioned in the introduction, the authors of both The DVC and HBHG
felt this passage was the most important evidence they had, yet it
actually contradicts the idea that Mary and Jesus were married. Here’s
why. Let’s say for the moment that the correct reading of the verse in
question is “he used to kiss her often on the mouth.” The problem is
that we still must account for the reaction of the disciples in this
scene. According to Philip, they were envious of the special attention
that Mary Magdalene received. Now, consider the following scenario. I am a married man and my closest friend is also married. Imagine that the next time I go over to his house and pick him up for the football game, he kisses his wife on the mouth and says goodbye. Immediately, I become irate and strenuously object to the kiss, demanding to know why he doesn’t love me as he loves her. It’s hard to fathom such a thing under any possible circumstances. It’s really quite ridiculous, is it not? Nevertheless, that’s essentially what the “married Jesus” crowd is asking us to believe about this scene in the Gospel of Philip. If Mary Magdalene were Christ’s wife, why would the disciples become indignant about him kissing her often? Why would they expect to be loved in the same way that Jesus loved her? Did Matthew, John and Peter all want Jesus to start kissing them on the mouth and marry them too? This point ruins any chance of the "married Jesus" proponents using this verse to support their "wishful thinking" as Professor Robinson called it. If this still isn’t enough, consider Sophie’s sharp observation about the passage: “It says nothing of marriage.” When Teabing said, “The Gospel of Philip is a good place to start,” he should have also told you it’s a good place to end. Because, for the remainder of the book, the author spends much of his time trying to distract the reader from realizing that this evidence was all he had. Lastly, in the quote from page 245, notice again the clever use of the word "troubling":
How nice. I appreciate him being troubled by his attempt to undermine my confidence in the scriptures. But, he has to do it, you see. He has an obligation to the truth. After all, he’s supposed to be a British Royal Historian, knighted, in fact: Sir Leigh Teabing. And what about Langdon? He’s a world-famous “symbologist”! Who cares if there’s no such thing as a symbologist? I don’t. There’s not much of anything that’s real in The Da Vinci Code. - The Gnostics / Round II - (“It’s All ‘Greek’ To Me”)- But Teabing cannot leave well-enough alone. He just doesn’t know when to quit:
I’m glad Langdon “concurred with a nod.” I don’t know if I would’ve been persuaded by Teabing alone. I’m not sure if I like Teabing. I don’t trust him either. He’s much too enthusiastic and I don't like the way he patronizes Sophie. The reason she keeps looking to Langdon for confirmation is because she has doubts about Teabing as well. Nevertheless, Langdon and Teabing both agree that “companion means spouse". All “Aramaic scholars” know that, right? Here's a question for Mr. Brown's dedicated followers: Is he being straight with us here, or not? Are we supposed to believe this? Of course we are. But Langdon plus Teabing still doesn’t add up to jack-squat. Because as any Aramaic mathematician will tell you, two times zero is still zero! We see a pattern developing here. Repeatedly, in The Da Vinci Code, the author attempts to validate an assertion by appealing to unnamed experts or sources. When Teabing claimed "all Aramaic scholars” would confirm that, “companion means spouse,” nine readers out of ten probably never questioned it. That’s a big mistake with this author. Let’s ask a real expert and check back with Claremont University Professor, James Robinson. He supervised the translation of these documents and had this to say:
In boxing jargon, this is called a "knock-out punch." But just to seal the deal, let's hear from Professor Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary. According to him, the term in question is a Greek loan word, koinonos, which is translated "companion", but it's not a typical word for “wife” (which in Greek would be some form of the term "gyne"). So now we have two scholars in agreement that campanion does not mean wife. I'm no scholar, but let me add my two cents. We can get a feel for the variety of meanings that "koinonos" can have by looking at how it’s used in the New Testament:
So
much for the author’s assertion that this word “literally means
spouse.” It appears as though it literally means "fishing partner" too.
At this point, it should be getting obvious that there is a lot of
bluffing going on in The Da Vinci Code. The author fabricates
real-life facts as readily as he invents all the other things normally
found in a work of fiction. But is this professional? Is it honest? - The Gnostics / Round III - “The Other Passages” - Let’s get back to the “evidence” in The Da Vinci Code supporting the claim that Jesus was married. Next stop, page 246:
This sounds promising, but unfortunately the author decided not to share these “other passages” with us. That ought to tell you everything you need to know. Perhaps with all the overwhelming evidence presented thus far, he's afraid this would be too much for us and we’d start jumping out of windows. Most likely he is referring here to another reference in 'Philip' that describes Mary as a "companion," which won't help his case, so why bother showing it? But, if we’re really expected to believe that Jesus had a wife and daughter, then some convincing proof should be provided. Earthshaking claims require earthshaking evidence, and so far, all he has given me is a headache. There is one bright spot to this passage though. At least we don't have to figure out what scam he's got going this time. Fortunately, The Da Vinci Code returns to the question of matrimonial evidence on the next page. Maybe the author will surprise us yet:
Huh? He’s not going to show us the evidence because he’s afraid we’ll get bored? This sounds like a confession of complete bankruptcy on the matter. Apparently, The Da Vinci Code author hopes to convince us that Christ was a family man by assuring us that there are “countless references” out there somewhere. In short, he wants us to take his word for it! Not to mention all the nameless “modern historians” who have explored the question “ad nauseam.” Not only is he worried about boring us, now he’s afraid if he continues on like this, we’ll get nauseous too. He could be right about that. I think I’m starting to feel a little sick right now. A
short time ago, Teabing was gleefully salivating over the notion that
“if this secret is revealed, it will devastate the foundation of
Christianity.” However, the only foundation that’s in trouble here, is
the foundation of The Da Vinci Code. The entire weight of
this book rests squarely on the claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene
were married and had a child. But up until now, all he’s given us is
smoke and mirrors, and even those are in short supply. A case can be
made that he has no case. Evidence is mounting that there is no
evidence. Does anyone doubt he’d go into elaborate detail if he had
something solid? He even goes into elaborate detail about nothing! - The Gnostics / Round IV - “Inheriting the Family Business”- The author must have been sensing some futility too, because now he switches gears and tries attacking the conspiracy from a different angle. Jesus would probably never have left a woman in charge of his church, right? Unless of course, she was his wife! So now Teabing, still with The Gnostic Gospels open, points out a passage from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene for Sophie. The intention here is to convince us that Jesus wanted Mary Magdalene (his wife), rather than Peter, to be the head of his church. Apparently, it never occurred to The DVC author that if Jesus was just an ordinary guy, he wouldn’t have been thinking about establishing a religion in his own honor. It's understandable that such a glaring contradiction might escape the author's attention. He was probably preoccupied with finding a way to convince us Mary Magdalene actually wrote this “gospel.” The idea is too silly to have his male authority figures say it, so he has poor Sophie make the erroneous assumption. In the novel, we’re told: “Sophie had not known a gospel existed in the Magdalene’s own words.” Sorry folks, but Mary had already been pushing up daisies for a hundred years when this was written. Let’s pick up the action with Levi and Peter having a tiff. Here it is, The Gospel of Gnostic Mary: From The Gospel of Mary Magdalene:
From The Da Vinci Code:
I
don't know if Peter was a sexist, but Teabing is definitely a piece of
work. The deviousness of this passage is ghastly. The author should be
sentenced to six months of calling bingo at a nursing home for 60's
radicals. According to Dan Brown, The Gospel of Mary Magdalene says,
“Jesus gave Mary instructions to carry on his church after he was
gone.” Really? Is that so? Where is that exactly, Dan? Help me out
here. The author wants us to believe that Mary was supposed to be the
head of the church, Pope Mary I, apparently. So in order to get that
hot-air balloon to rise, he simply turns on the gas and claims that it
says so in The Gospel of Mary Magdalene. But it doesn’t. It never says
anything of the kind. Nada, it’s pure fantasy. However, when nine
readers out of 10 never bother to check, what does he care? But wait,
it gets even better. Go back and locate the phrase, “At this point in the gospels.” Got it? Now here is the question. At what point in the gospel is Teabing referring to here? The Gospel of Mary Magdalene has no story; Gnostic Jesus is long since dead. And, if there is no story, then there is no timeline, either. All this stuff about, “at this point in the gospels, Jesus suspects he’ll be captured and crucified” is another total fabrication, just like Mary being the Pope. How many dead people do you know who are afraid of getting crucified? I guess it's possible, but it can't be very common. The same is true with Christ supposedly giving orders for “after he’s gone.” At that point, Gnostic Jesus had been history for quite some time. He's not suspicious of anything here except why all these people are still taking him so seriously. When he graces us with his presence in these “unaltered gospels,” he is a ghostly apparition, hovering around like he hasn't got anything better to do. This is not the Jesus of The Bible. In this gospel, Gnostic Jesus' main contribution is to instruct Peter that “Sin does not exist.” Boy, that’s a relief! It's obvious that Gnostic Jesus and the real Jesus have different messages. The partial codex we have of this gospel is about as long as a high school essay (less than 1300 words), and every bit as tedious. Everything that comes after “The stakes were far higher” in this Da Vinci Code passage is, shall we say, less than honest. Much less. What is the author trying to do here? He is attempting to make The Gospel of Mary Magdalene sound like the gospels in the New Testament, only from a woman’s perspective. That way it's only a slight variation of the commonly accepted history and much more believable. In actuality, this “gospel” has almost nothing in common with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It’s not like comparing apples and oranges; it’s more like comparing avocados and ashtrays. It was written more than a hundred years after Jesus lived and certainly not by Mary Magdalene, who was one of his contemporaries. Like all the Gnostic writings, it deals not with the events of Christ’s life, but rather with post-resurrection visions where he speaks a lot of weird Gnostic philosophy. Would
you like a taste of what this gospel really has to say? Let’s look at a
passage from The Gospel of Mary Magdalene that wasn’t invented by an
unprincipled modern writer obsessed with hitting the big-time. In it,
Gnostic Mary is sharing some secrets that Gnostic Jesus revealed only
to her. You must commit this section to memory, though, because you’ll
have to recite it when you die. The only way your soul can get past the
cosmic prison guards (archons) on its way to heaven (what the Gnostics
called the “celestial ascent”), is if you know these magical passwords.
Otherwise, you could end up being turned back and reincarnated as
something that has antennae. At least that’s what the Gnostics
believed. Here, Gnostic Mary Magdalene is giving the other disciples
the inside scoop about what to tell the archons:
After saying that, Mary was silent? I certainly hope so. What can you say after something like that? I can see how this passage might give someone the impression that Mary and Jesus were man and wife … well … then again, maybe I can’t. A fitting conclusion to this secret teaching of Gnostic Mary Magdalene is the reaction of Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother:
My
sentiments exactly. I have nothing to add, except perhaps that it might
have been better if Gnostic Mary had let her secret teaching remain a
secret. - Oh… So That’s Why There’s No Evidence... - On to page 254. Teabing is back to pontificating about imaginary events:
Yes, yes, we know the evidence is substantial, but what is it? You keep forgetting to tell us. Actually, this passage does answer some questions. The Church “has buried the evidence of Christ’s marriage!” The reason he has no evidence, is because the church buried it all. Why? To frustrate the author of The Da Vinci Code, of course! They knew some smart-alec would come along and figure out that the Holy Grail was a woman’s uterus instead of a drinking cup, so they planned ahead and hid all the proof. The marriage license? Gone. Wedding photos? Those are gone, too. The minister and the limousine driver? Both mysteriously disappeared. Wedding rings, invitations, silk-flower arrangements and the empty Pampers boxes? Every trace, vanished! And, all this just to “defuse” Dan Brown’s claim two thousand years later that Gnostic Mary and Gnostic Jesus were husband and wife. Such a devious and diabolical plan! Any fool can see now why the author has a vendetta against the Catholic Church. Those devious priests had to, "defend themselves against the Magdalene's power!" Oh, please. I haven’t counted the number of times Langdon nods his approval to Sophie after one of Teabing’s screwy claims, but it’s a lot. For all intents and purposes, Langdon has drifted just as far from shore as Teabing. However, there’s still hope for the “symbologist,” because admitting that there is a problem is half the battle. On page 215, we find this moving cry for help. One of those rare moments of clarity and insight:
Langdon is sort of a “yes-man.” An Ed McMahon to Teabing’s Johnny Carson. But unlike Langdon, Ed would never get mixed up with a serial killer like Teabing. As you may’ve noticed, Langdon and Teabing seem to think exactly alike. They share the same condescending attitude toward Jesus, The Bible, church-goers, Sophie, Albinos, and lots more. Well, on with the show. In case we still haven’t gotten the message, we are reminded yet again how massive the evidence is and how foolish we are to question it on page 255:
Can
anyone say “broken record?” These guys are somethin’ else! What I would
like to see here, are a few specifics. I’m not sure what Langdon means
by, “all these books,” but it sounds like a lot. At least one of them
has to contain a few details that substantiate the theory that Mary
Magdalene and Jesus were married (as well as parents). That’s what the
word “substantiate” means, doesn’t it? To provide detailed evidence. As
in: - Scamming the Publisher (Is Nothing Sacred?) - Hold the phone; it seems we’ve overlooked something. Since Langdon is submitting a book about the Holy Grail to his publisher, he’s going to have to sell him on these far-fetched theories. Surely, the publisher will insist on seeing all the documentation, (just as Random House had to do with Dan Brown, right?) Finally we’ll be able to get to the bottom of this. We’ll just be flies on the wall in the office of Langdon’s “prominent New York editor, Jonas Faukman:
Ohhh, now I get it. Langdon has books. Why didn’t he say so? Wait a minute, he did say so… a number of times. He’s managed to get off again without producing any evidence! These guys are slippery. Notice how the fish-story has grown for purposes of conning the publisher. Now the evidence is “staggeringly persuasive” according to Langdon. I don’t recall ever seeing that particular adverb combined with that particular adjective before. The assertion that “wars” have been fought over the Holy Grail is a little strange, considering the grail is a legend. Moreover, how could these “centuries-old” books claim that Mary Magdalene is the Holy Grail, when the theory wasn’t dreamed-up until 1982 by the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail? What can you say about Langdon’s publisher? Not fact-checking a book that deals with sacred subjects seems a bit irresponsible. - The Grand Finale: Revealing the Sources - This whole procession of empty promises is almost over. However, like any entertainer, the author of The Da Vinci Code wants to go out with a big finish. So what he lacks in substance, he attempts to compensate for with volume. He’s going to throw everything that’s on the buffet table against the wall and hope something sticks. So now, more than ever, close attention must be paid. Never has so much milk & water been served in champagne bottles in an effort to hoodwink unsuspecting readers. Like a prosecutor who knows he hasn’t made his case, he pulls out all the stops and attempts a "Hail Mary" (pun undefended), during closing arguments. You’ll be assured that secret writings do exist when they don’t. Then you’ll be encouraged to trust books that are real, but should’ve remained secret.
As examples of these “exhaustive chronicles,” we are given the titles of four books that have even less credibility than The Da Vinci Code. I’ve read that Mr. Brown is quite particular about which authors he will “borrow” from; membership in the Fringe-Authors Guild is a must. One critic described his sources as being “so far out in left field, they often can't tell when the game is finished". It's Mr. Brown's uncritical acceptance of these earlier works that is responsible for The Da Vinci Code being so vacuous and full of error to begin with. Now Mr. Brown has decided to parade this same group of authors around under the guise of, “historians” and “authorities” (the writers of four books of questionable scholarship constitute “scores of historians”). Most academics with expertise in the fields these books touch on, have never heard of them. The ones who have, generally regard the entire genre as a hoax. We'll take a closer look at The Fringe-Authors Guild a bit later. Now the four books listed in The Da Vinci Code
are the sources of Dan Brown’s theories. Now he wants to turn around
and use these same sources to corroborate the claims in his book as if
they were original. You can’t do that, and anyone with a lick of sense
knows it. It would be like listing yourself as a personal reference on
your own resume! Or, it’s like calling the same witness in court a
second time to corroborate his original testimony. In addition, the
four books listed in The DVC contradict each other on very major points. Consider the following quote from Clive Prince and Lynn Picknett, authors of The Templar Revelation:
As already mentioned, Holy Blood is a “conspiracy” book written way back in the 1980s that originated the hypothesis that Mary Magdalene is the Holy Grail. The Da Vinci Code ripped-off more from this book than all the others combined. The name "Teabing" is actually an anagram of Baigent, one of the authors. To give you an idea of just how far-fetched this “scholarly” work is, Teabing issues the following disclaimer:
Wow! That’s like being called obnoxious by Don Rickles, or having Ronald McDonald make fun of the way you dress. Not to worry, though. Teabing forgives them for their faulty reasoning by adding:
Yes, we can all be thankful for that. A massive amount of something is piling-up here, but I don’t think it’s evidence! The tongue-in-cheek comment about the "Fringe-Authors Guild" doesn't need validation now, because the author has just unwittingly verified it. In the above quote, he's telling us that all the far-fetched theories that these author's churn out like butter are, "finally going mainstream." So where were they before? They were way out in left field, on the fringes of reality, exactly where they belonged. Using references to support your position is fine. However, you can’t just list a book title and say, "this is my proof” like the author is doing. If these resources contain compelling evidence, or convincing arguments, then that is what should have been presented here. We’re being asked to take the author’s word for everything. This appalling practice continues throughout The Da Vinci Code. Some will object that it isn't necessary to verify the claims in a novel. It's just fiction. If that's the case, then why is he constantly trying to verify everything? It's because he's attempting to convince the reader these claims are true in the real world and he does it by insisting over and over that mountains of evidence exist, when they do not. These are the things that do not belong in a novel. Why does the author try to get off with just giving book titles, or saying he has "hundreds of books" that prove his point? He didn't actually read most of them; not even the most important. In court testimony, he admitted his wife would simply go through and highlight the passages worth appropriating. The DVC isn't a poorly-researched novel, it wasn't researched at all. We'll look at some specifics later.
The only thing that’s well-documented in all this, is The Da Vinci Code’s penchant for making wild and baseless assertions. - Summary of the Evidence - The most amazing thing about the evidence in The Da Vinci Code is that there isn't any. At least none that is credible. But, as any minister of propaganda will tell you, people can be persuaded to believe just about anything if it’s repeated often enough. So the book goes on and on like a broken record about reams of documentation we never see. When the author felt he had good evidence (the Gospel of Phillip, The Last Supper), he presented it. When he thought he had a good argument (celibacy condemned by the Jews), he presented it. Therefore, the only reason he would stop presenting evidence is that he's out of bullets, but they were all blanks anyway. No one leaves the best cards in their hand unplayed. Because of this, it's safe to assume Mr. Brown doesn't have "fifty books" proving his case. He is like a poker player who bluffs on every hand. In no time, everyone at the table is on to him. The irony is that even the British judge in his plagiarism trial let him get away with providing a list of 38 books as "evidence" he didn't rip-off Holy Blood. Can this farce possibly get any more ridiculous? I'll wager those books either deal with window dressing issues like the Templars or they're Holy Blood knock-offs, the same as The Da Vinci Code is. The grail theory does not go back two thousand years, or even two hundred years. No bona fide historian has ever pondered these ideas, let alone professed them. They remained hidden until The King of France, Crazy Pierre Plantard, hooked up with the Holy Blood flying circus. The bottom line is that there is no evidence presented in The Da Vinci Code
that Jesus was married. The verse from the Gnostic Gospel of Philip
(circa 4th century) actually contradicts the claim. In addition, a
third of the passage is missing, so you can't build any other kind of
case on it, either! It would be inadmissible as evidence in every court
in the nation. As for the clues in the Last Supper, even if there was
something to them, all that would show is that Leonardo may have
believed Jesus was married, not that the claim itself was true. Never
has so much, been said by so many, about so little. My tentative
conclusion is that The Da Vinci Code (and Holy Blood) could very well be the most extravagant pile of compost the world has seen since the brontosaurus went extinct. - Why? Because I Said So ! (The Appeal to Authority) - Given
the overall lack of evidence presented, how does the book still manage
to be an effective piece of propaganda? Why do people find it
convincing? The author simply endowed Langdon and Teabing with a
godlike mystique of authority. Everything they say is like Moses
speaking from Mt. Sinai. It works because the main characters are
experts on virtually everything. Teabing is the “preeminent Grail
historian on earth” and Langdon is a world-renowned “Harvard
symbologist,” who knows the “real meaning” of every concept and symbol
in history. Watch how nicely this trick works when the author has the
unenviable task of establishing the strange notion that the Holy Grail
is actually a woman:
Did
you catch it? It only takes him one sentence. Just go along with
Langdon's premise and he'll explain the entire universe in twenty-five
words or less. "The Grail is symbolic of the lost goddess" It
is? How do you know? Oh, I forgot, you're an expert symbologist.
Langdon is supposed to be establishing this grail-goddess connection
and he starts out by assuming his conclusion. But hey, he's an expert,
right? If you don’t think these guys got away with murder, check it out:
Langdon’s
scholarly opinion on this important topic sounds a little questionable.
What in the world are they teaching at Harvard these days? But, that’s
nothing compared to this jewel by Teabing:
Teabing’s observation is reminiscent of something you might’ve heard in junior high. In another scene from the book, we find them embarrassing Sophie with some foolishness about losing her virginity to them and being "robbed" of her orgasm. The author weaves this into the fabric of the plot by labeling her a "grail virgin." But readers hardly notice this kids stuff because you never question the voice of authority. At one point, Teabing finally manages to guess right about something and tells a worshipful Langdon that it was no big deal because, "Christianity is my field of expertise." Now there's something you don't see every day; a pagan serial-killer who's also an authority on Jesus. All you aspiring novelists need to learn this technique of making your characters experts. Then you too will be able to write on subjects that you know nothing about. First, give your characters sterling credentials. Second, have them always speak with a tone of authority, as if stating facts (like one might sound when giving commands to a dog). And finally, have them make endless references to subjects that sound impressive. Let’s examine how it's done in The DVC with Teabing and Langdon. All of the following topics are part of the vast compendium of knowledge found in The Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown actually discussed this practice in court testimony. He called it, giving "mini-lectures", although he usually just mentions a subject title. You never notice how many there are because they’re spread throughout the book. My original list was twice as long, but a couple of friends began to sob uncontrollably while trying to read all the way through it, so the number was reduced. I also added a few myself because it looked like fun. See if you can spot them. What this amounts to, is putting on airs about how broad your range of knowledge is. It’s like name-dropping, only instead of mentioning impressive sounding people, you refer to impressive sounding subjects. So, what follows isn't just another lame attempt at humor on my part. It is that, of course, but there is also a point. This practice is almost like subliminal advertising, where you're being influenced without knowing it. Since the author never expands on any of these topics, he may have just copied down subject titles after opening an encyclopedia at random. But enough of this, let's watch a master at work. Here goes: The knowledge of Teabing and Langdon is breathtaking. Both are practically omniscient on the following subjects: All religions, including every form of Paganism, Gnosticism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Frisbeetarianism (According to Teabing, they believe that when you die, your soul gets caught in a tree). Included are all the sacred books too: The Bible, The Gnostic Gospels, The Malleus Maleficarum, the Pali Canon, Dianetics and The Gospel According to Peanuts. These men are even authorities on writings that don’t actually exist, like the “Sangreal” documents. They’re also experts on every secret society, including the Knights Templar, the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, and some that "are so secret, the author is forbidden to talk about them" (from Dan Brown’s website). And again they’ve taken the trouble to become extremely well-versed on a secret society that’s imaginary, namely, the Priory of Sion. In addition, our two hero's are considered among the world’s premier authorities on: Jesus Christ (especially his human traits, family tree, and astrological sign – “Pisces”), Mary Magdalene-Christ (including her bones, the ‘smear campaign’, and being the first to have a hyphenated last name), Sarah Christ, Uncle Joe of Arimathia, Noah the albino, Albinos in general, the Witch-hunts, Original Sin, the Fibonacci sequence, Walt Disney, The Inquisition, testosterone-fueled wars, misogynistic societies, “orgasm as prayer”, The Rose, The Rose Line, female genitalia, The Tribe of Benjamin, penises, Emperor Constantine, Christian thievery of pagan symbols, Scientific evidence, Torture, hermaphrodites, androgyny, the public at large, anagrams, the Devil, God, Mozart, Beethoven’s Fifth, 1.618 (PHI), f-holes, exhumed corpses, spiraled pine-cone petals, “cryptographic gibberish”, and sexual horrors in prison. Then, as a result of “paying really close attention while watching Jeopardy", they know all there is to know about: GPS, ODAN, GPCJ, Mount Vesuvius, the Catholic pedophilia scandal, reverse handwriting, Eve, black-light luminescent calligraphy, Satanic serial-killer movies, Entanglement Physics, Using satellites to track manta ray migrations, non-invasive lighting in the Vatican Secret Archives, Wicca incantations, gold caducei wands, Tjet ankhs, Sistrum rattles, Labrys axes, Inverted pyramids, 666, a “Neanderthal in a double-breasted suit”, Frozen music, Tasteless Americans, Orgiastic rituals at the Arc du Carrousel and “Macho, diminutive, insecure, womanizers like Pepin the Short & Napoleon, and their relation to a thousand-foot phallus” (the Eiffel Tower). We’ve finally reached the limits of their knowledge… almost. As a result of taking night-school classes online and watching the History Channel, the knowledge of our two academic whirlwinds is considered “scary” on: Women’s intuition, the women’s entrance at Opus Dei, fertility relics, The Marquis de Sade, deadly peanut allergies, symbologist baby-sitters, the “Church’s insidious influence”, the insanity defense, making stuff up and calling it "history,” Achieving “gnosis” thru sex, Achieving a “mental vacuum” thru sex, &“Sex as a pathway to God”. Paris Fire Regulations, religious cynicism, American tourists who shoplift, the Tree of Knowledge, self-flagellation, "eerie eccentricities”, the Hopi Indians and koyanisquatsi (author out of balance), Demonic auras, Demonic symbols, Demonic cookie recipes, giving lectures while holding people at gunpoint, flamboyant homosexuals, “invisible connections between emblems”, using blood as ink, angry oxen, Sephardic transliterations, “fricasseed testicles”, and How to effect major revisions of history by conning people with the phony expertise of fictional characters. Also, according to Rank-An-Expert.com, Langdon is in the top 0.1% of all the symbologists in the world (probably because he’s the only one). Teabing ranks in the top 0.0001% of all knighted historians who walk on crutches, own a private jet, keep idols of Isis on their fireplace mantel, and have killed people. As you may be aware, everything that happened 10 seconds ago, extending all the way back in time, is actually part of “the past”. Since our heroes are historians of the highest caliber, and therefore experts on the past, they qualify as authorities on all other subjects in addition to those listed above. Frankly, by the way those two guys talk, I don’t think there is anything that they don’t pretend to know. To be honest, at times their scope of knowledge can get a little annoying. For instance, when Teabing drinks too much, he often makes you sit there while he demonstrates his ability to say "hello" in 114 different languages. Langdon has also been known to over-imbibe on occasion. This usually results in heated arguments with strange women, but these are minor objections. - The Walt Disney Connection - There is still one dead horse left to beat and that’s the Disney connection. According to the author of The Da Vinci Code, Walt Disney also believed in the grail theory and supposedly put hidden messages in his cartoons. So Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, The Little Mermaid and Dumbo all testify to the almost for-sure theory that Mary Magdalene was married to ..... Dan Brown, in a previous life. Somehow Dumbo seems to fit better than the others. We’re also told that the word SEX is clearly visible in The Lion King. What this has to do with the topic under discussion is unclear. After reading the section on Disney, I had a mental image of the author sitting in his mansion, counting his millions, and laughing until he wet his pants. But no, if he says Disney put secret messages in his cartoons, it must be true. Why would he lie about that? In the final analysis, there are only two things mentioned in The Da Vinci Code that could be considered “evidence” that the grail theory even existed prior to 1982 (the publishing of Holy Blood, Holy Grail).
The first is the identity of the person seated next to Christ in The
Last Supper - could that actually be Mary Magdalene? That question will
be answered in the next chapter. The other involves the so-called
Sangreal documents, assuming they end up being something more than a
figment. We’ll address that question in chapter four by taking a
hysterical, historical look at an amazing book: Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It's a far more interesting work of fiction than The Duh Vinci Code. However, the single most baffling mystery in this whole situation is ..... why they haven’t reconvened the Inquisition.*** *** That last remark is another "L.a.a.h" (lame attempt at humor). Yet one overly - excitable reader has accused us of really trying to bring back the Inquisition. This gentleman was also convinced we believe Sir Leigh Teabing is a real person. At least he got that part right. - m.j. bakeland / d. bertolini - |
copyright 2006-2007
No portion of this Web site may be reproduced in any form without the expressed written consent of the authors.
