I was thinking about starting a topic about Dan Brown and the various theories for what the Holy Grail is. I felt I didn't have enough information on her, though, so I decided not to. But I might as well:

Contrary to the popular Biblical belief that the Holy Grail is the cup Jesus drank from, Dan Brown believes the Holy Grail has to do with Jesus' (alleged) lover Maria Magdalena (known as Mary Magdalene to English-speakers). There are many things that suggest Maria Magdalene and Jesus were lovers and even had a child, resulting in a "Divine family tree" of descendants of the Son of Christ.

Dan Brown claims to have sources that Mary Magdalene's image in the Bible as a sin-full prostitute are incorrect and produced by the Church to dis-credit her and the theory that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' lover. He also tells us, trough his book, that the Church has spent the last centuries systematically hunting down and assassinating believed descendants of Jesus Christ and Magdalene.

In additon to that, there's supposedly a Biblical "Book of David" which describes, among other things, Jesus's relationship with Mary Magdalene and his disiples (sp.?) jealousy.

Many publications today refer to this version of the story of the Holy Grail: Tarot cards supposedly tell her tale; Disney's cartoon adventure about Sleeping Beuty supposedly (according to Walt Disney, who said he often hid Grail rhetoric in his works) reffers to Mary Magdalene (also known as "Rose") hidden away from the people who wanted her ill (the sleeping princess beyond the thorns is, according to Walt Disney, an analogy refering to Mary Magdalene).

Sources: The Da Vinci Code (which is an excellent thriller as well, and a very interesting book even if you're not into Biblical history and symbolism:D).
www.DanBrown.com)
DanBrown.Com links to other sources on the Holy Grail.
http://www.magdalene.org/)
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm)
Idiot's Guide to Mary Magdalene (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1592573452/ref=ase_magdaleorgbookli/103-6810621-8752600?v=glance&s=books) For some reason given one star, though I can't see any reviews:confused:.
Dagobahn Eagle

As regards Dan Brown: Great storyteller. But his repeated claims that his book is based entirely in fact are nonsense. First of all, his book is based upon a long since discredited book called "the holy blood and the holy grail" which made many of the same claims, and masqueraded totally as a factual thesis.

Tony Robinson made an excellent documentary for UK television recently, debunking the more lurid claims found in both books.

The sad fact is that the most important core claim is true, but nobody pays attention to it because of the sheer outrageousness of the rest of the claims... This truth is that Mary Magdalene was an influential figure in the story of Jesus, and had her own book in the new testament at one stage, as I recall. But centuries of vested interests in the organised church conspired to burn all records of just how influential she was. Sad. But the mother of old J's child? Nah.

What AL said.

The Tony Robinson documentary was actually a bit tabloidy for my tastes... but it did demolish almost all of Dan Brown's claims. The most important being that the so called Priory of Sion was a hoax... they even talked to the guy that did it.

Its also amazing what a total rip off of "Holy Blood Holy Grail" the book was.

I do agree with the idea that Mary Magdalene was more important than the gospels made out. And that the gnostic gospels and other contempory texts shouldn't have been cut out of history... but unfortunately the rest of his conspiracy theory claims are pretty flawed.

That DOES look like a girl in the last supper though :D (but then michaelangelo did like feminine young boys, if you know what i mean ;) )

Also, though everyone i know thought the book was "interesting", the second thing everyone said was how badly written it was.
I haven't read any of his other books, but he is a really bad writer, imho.

Also, though everyone i know thought the book was "interesting", the second thing everyone said was how badly written it was. I haven't read any of his other books, but he is a really bad writer imho.
Not in any possible way, if you ask me. His books have so many puzzles for you to solve, and so many unexpected twists, that to me he's one of the greatest authors ever.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Not in any possible way, if you ask me. His books have so many puzzles for you to solve, and so many unexpected twists, that to me he's one of the greatest authors ever. It was an interesting read, but that statement just sounds absurd.

This type of religious thriller/ mystery (however you categorize it) is one of my favourites and I really expected to enjoy 'The Da Vinci Code'. Unfortunately the Author spent a lot of time on creating codes and answering them and virtually nothing on developing the characters - they were as flat, shallow and lifeless as a puddle and about as endearing.

The majority of the book seemed weighed down with a self-congratulatory tone and the main character spent most of his time in lecture mode, regurgitating facts and conclusions without ever becoming engaging. Similarly the love interest seemed thrown in as a nod to more conventional writing rather than any desire on Browns part to create a more rounded story. His inclination seems to focus on showing the reader just how many theories and historical, quasi-religious facts he can come up with and he uses the central character as his mouthpiece.

It's not all bad, the story is fairly pacy and the subject matter interesting. Unfortunately it's poorly written and it's lack of character definition let the book down completely (I never worked out whether I liked the central character at all as there was little to work with) Not my review, but it sums up my feeling on the author.
Gets fairly mixed reviews on amazon too:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0552149519/qid=1112895307/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-3210306-0781251)

---------------------

Although most of his historical facts, and the conspiracy theories linking them, turned out to be based on HBHG stuff that had already been disproved... the central idea that the early catholic church edited the bible to exclude bits they didn't like (mainly women) is something i do agree with.

Obviously I don't have much in the way of scholarly knowledge or facts to back it up, but i remember hearing about the theory that Mary Magdaline was an apostle (and may be jesus's wife) a long time ago and thinking it made sense.

Skin knows a lot about the gnostic gospels i think, so maybe he can entighten us on them. I think they imply Mary was more important.

Even as an impartial observer whatching the ultra orthodox "passion of christ" you got the impression she must be an important character.

I haven't posted in this thread yet for one reason: I hadn't read The Da Vinci Code until yesterday. Well, I actually started it the night before.

That I read it quickly as I did means two things to me: 1) it was an easy read; 2) it was a fun read.

I haven't had much time for fiction lately, but I thoroughly enjoyed Brown's book. Incidently, I'm in the middle of reading Collapse by Jared Diamond, a non-fiction sequal to Guns, Germs and Steel. I highly recommend both to anyone interested in the rise of complexity in human society and the collapses that societies eventually endure and why.

But Brown's book was very interesting and I enjoyed his ability to both tell a story and incorporate actual symbology and iconography in his plot.

I'm not convinced that the Holy Grail was Mary Magdelane, but he made a very convincing case in the way he presented his arguments. In other words, I was able to suspend disbelief temporarily and engage myself in the novel. Just as I can do the same in a Star Wars novel/movie and still leave the experience understanding that the "Force" is just a plot device.

I think it was obvious that many of his plot devices, while having some basis in reality, weren't exactly as he described them in the book. The Opus Dias, for instance. They are a very real sub-cult in Catholicism, and certainly have their critics, but I seriously doubt that they have taken to assassination.

The Leonardo version of The Last Supper does indeed have the elements that Brown's character, Langdon, describes in the novel. The color coordination of Jesus and his nearest right disciple is unmistakable, as is this disciple's apparent feminine features.

I've been an admirer of Leonardo Da Vinci for years (I also recommend How to Think Like Leonardo Da Vinci, by Michael Gelb) and this is a style of his that is prominent in much of his work. It's called Sfumato and translates to "turned to mist" or "up in smoke" or simply "smoked." Leonardo embraced uncertainty, ambiguity and paradox and reflected this in his paintings. The Mona Lisa is a good example as is his St. John the Baptist (http://www.join2day.net/abc/L/leonardo/leonardo11.JPG). Click on the link, and note the distinctive female characteristics Da Vinci gave our man John!

But I can't imagine that Da Vinci had any more information than most of his peers of his period with regard to the actual last meal of the alleged Christ. (I say alleged because there were several messiahs that lived contemporary to Jesus... there was even more than one "Jesus." But if there was an actual person named Jesus, the one we're familiar with seems the most virtuous if we are to believe the early christian writings). Da Vinci certainly didn't witness the "Last Supper," so everything he put into the painting was from his imagination. But it would have been right in Da Vinci's character to insert symbology and ambiguity within it.. the type of things that might go unnoticed for years.

Incidently, there's a special on Dateline NBC (http://tv.yahoo.com/tvpdb?d=tvp&id=169335607&cf=0&lineup=us_DMA623&channels=us_KXAS&chspid=166030865&chname=NBC+5&progutn=1113436800&.intl=us) claims will explore the Da Vinci Code to "separate fact from fiction."

With regard to the Gnostic Gospels, I've read a few and find them fascinating. I also find that they have more credibility than the Gospels that were ultimately chosen (many early Christian writings were reviewed by the Canon committee, but they settled on the ones they did for various reasons, most of which we will never know).

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene (http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospel-magdalene.htm), for instance, directly challenges the limitations that early Christians were placing upon women in the budding religion. The Gospel of Mary confronts the orthodox opinion of Peter and Andrew that women should not teach. It also paints a very Eastern philosphical slant on the teachings of Jesus. Particularly with regard to the passage in the GoM that speaks of the "seven powers of wrath," which can be compared to the Tibetan Book of the Dead's writings that upon death, peaceful and wrathful visions can appear as the soul is freed and attains a new reality and awareness.

There are other early Christian writings that are considered Biblical but not in the Bible. These are usually referred to as Apocrypha and can be found here: http://www.ntcanon.org/writings.shtml)

The Gnostic Writings are different. Most were found in 1945 in the Nag Hammadi library (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html)in) Egypt. They can be found on the internet at the previous link or this one: http://www.gnosis.org/library/gs.htm)

For those that are confused about my worldview at this point, let me point out that I'm an agnostic atheist (the former is an adjective, the latter a noun), but I'm also an anthropology/archaeology major, so the the mythology and beliefs of past cultures as they relate to contemporary cultures fascinates me to no end.

you can find the UK documentary "The Real Davinci Code" as a torrent with a quick google search. As i said, it was very tabloid-like in its presentation... and sometimes took too long to get to the important bits.

But it did debunk a lot of the links in the chain that Brown used to link the grail to Mary and Mary to france/the templars.

His writing reminds me of Michael Crichton. He puts just enough "real sounding technical stuff" into his books to make them sound plausible and credible and almost documentary-like.... but he then wraps all those elements up in a story that is pure fiction. And a lot of the real-sounding stuff isnt even real.

Personally I think michael crichton does it better, as at least his books have plausible characters and reasonable plots. By the end of the davinci code i thought it was getting very desperate with fake-sounding arguements repeated over and over and plot twists for the sake of plot twists.

Wish i had the concentration span to read the whole of the gospel of mary, but i'm just too.... ooh look, a butterfly!!!

Originally posted by SkinWalker I think it was obvious that many of his plot devices, while having some basis in reality, weren't exactly as he described them in the book. The Opus Dias, for instance. They are a very real sub-cult in Catholicism, and certainly have their critics, but I seriously doubt that they have taken to assassination.[/B]

You'll notice that the assassinations in the book are not sanctioned by the leaders of the Opus Dei; they are the work of a single fanatic or two.

But I can't imagine that Da Vinci had any more information than most of his peers of his period with regard to the actual last meal of the alleged Christ.

But he sure had issues with the Church. And by the way, placing inside jokes in art is by no means uncommon. It is only natural that Da Vinci would subtly mock the institution that threatened his life (he performed autopsies, which was very illegal according to the Church).

http://www.google.no/search?q=leonardo+da+vinci)
:cool:

You'll notice that the assassinations in the book are not sanctioned by the leaders of the Opus Dei; they are the work of a single fanatic or two.
I'd actually forgotten that. Thank you for reminding me.

It helps to remember that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. I have not read it, but I have read a very similar work (from the 1980's purporting to be NON-fiction), entitled Holy Blood, Holy Grail which makes many similar claims. It's conspiracy theorist pseudo-history and has been utterly debunked.

It may be a best seller, but it's nothing new, and isn't taken seriously in scholarly circles.

And yes, I'm a religion major who plans on doing graduate work in Early Christianity. I don't claim to know everything on the subject, but at least I can say with confidence that TDC is not on firm foundation, fact-wise.


If it were true, what about be the point of this? To say that "real Christianity" is really about worshipping the Merovingian Kings? Some kind of New Agey Goddess religion centered on deifing women and sexuality? I don't think the people who promote these theories necessarily even believe in it, they just don't agree with Catholicism (or Christianity in general).


That said, I'm a big fan of the Grail myth. I love King Arthur stories, and have several of them at home and many others I've read over the years. But conspiracy theories like this miss the point of those stories. The Holy Grail isn't a real object (and it's not Mary Magdalen's womb for crying out loud!) it's a metaphor for faith in Christ, that nourishes a person's soul.

The only thing to this whole mess is that maybe Leonardo was a conspiracy minded guy and believed this stuff. That's certain possible, but the little I've read about Leonardo da Vinci himself is that he was basically an agnostic until he got much older, and he converted and died a faithful Catholic.

Speaking of controversial religious fiction, there's a movie coming out next year by some atheists called "the beast" (I'm on their mailing list, it looks like it's a small time indie flick). They're making the claim that Jesus never existed, period. It will be interesting to see what they have to say if it's anything new. I also got done watching a documentary about the True Cross, formerly thought to be a forgery but (or rather, the titulus that above the crucified reading "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews") which might turn out to be factual (at least the case is being re-opened as of 2002). Ditto for the Shroud of Turin (the piece tested from the middle ages was actually a patch sewn in to repair a part of the Shroud that was destroyed by fire). The case is still open...

And Mary Magdalene was declared in the 1960's by the Vatican to NOT be one we should confuse with the woman caught in adultery in the NT (the one Jesus forgives while writing in the sand, and saves from stoning) or the woman who washes Jesus feet with her tears. Of course this story resonates deeply with Hollywood (the "prostitute with a heart of gold" cliche) so it's hard to find a movie that doesn't refinforce the old idea of "Mary the Sinner" (according to the Bible, she had some demons cast out of her by Jesus, but nothing about her being a harlot, much less the Wife of the Lord).

Update:

The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English was published back in 1997, I recently got a copy, but I haven't read much of it yet. Suffice to say, it's not about Jesus, but rather Jewish teachings prior to, and around the time of Christ, widely believed to reflect the rigorist Essene sect at Qumran (they broke away from Jerusalem and set themselves up as a pious monastic kind of community). I also have several books of the Christian apocryphal works. The Nag Hammadi Library is mostly the Gnostic scriptures that people think of (the movie Stigmata tries to pin these as the "true Christianity" with a fictional portrayal of the Gospel of Thomas). They were discovered shortly before the DSS in Egypt. By the 1950's all the scrolls and papyri from those two locations had been discovered. By the 1990's they'd all been translated and made publically available (for a hefty sum you can even purchase a book of scanned photos of all the scrolls in the DSS collection, if you want to).

As to the "Christian Apocrypha"...

The ones that aren't obvious forgeries date to times much older than the canonical NT material though, with a few exceptions that were debated for centuries (like The Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas and The Epistle of Barnabus). Not every book labelled a "gospel" automatically has the same authority. The NT books were chosen based on strongly held apostolic authorship (or authorship of the disciple of an apostle). The reasoning of course being that if anyone knew what Jesus taught and understood it, it would have been his immediate generation of followers who lived with him and followed him. But these books are all available to read if people want to to decide for themselves.

The Gnostic sects had their own writings just like the more orthodox Christians and Jewish groups. In the end it's better to read what those folks wrote rather than some 21st century pulp writer trying to make a buck...

[Edit: fixed some typos]

Originally posted by Kurgan
The Gnostic sects had their own writings just like the more orthodox Christians and Jewish groups. In the end it's better to read what those folks wrote rather than some 21st century pulp writer trying to make a buck...

I've read both. The Da Vinci Code was far more entertaining :cool: