The Da Vinci Code

---

uhmmmmmm "Holy Blood Holy Grail" is NOT a historicl work, the author admitid it was all made up. but i see your point

"the author admitid it was all made up"When did the authors admit it was fiction? And what else did they have to say about that, do you know?

Wikipedia article on Holy Blood, Holy Grail": search for the word backpedaled. There's not a lot of detail there, but the "Priory of Sion" has been revealed as a hoax.

I haven't seen any evidence anywhere (including those links) to convince me either way. I would, however, be very interested in any evidence of either Richard Leigh, Micheal Biagnet or Henry Lincoln ever having stated that all their years of research never happened and that in fact their book was a work of fiction!

I don't think any historian would consider it a factual work, although some meritorious (but controversial) ideas are broached.There are some interesting references to Q, the Gnostic gospels, etc., on this Web page from a PBS program. One of the references is to an Atlantic Monthly article on the subject that I read 10 years ago. I think Buron L. Mack's book, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins might be rather out of date.Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Davinci Code, etc. are not scholarly works.

What a fantastic book, I read the whole book on the bus going to Austria, and I read it again on the way back, I've read it about 8 times now, and every time I find something new in the storyline... It has to be said though, when I read a book, then watch the film, the book is always better, what the imagination can concieve is better than anything that can be created in movies!!!!

you're being a little dismissive, don't you think?HBHG was just one of many works exploring these historical ideas.(my own vested intrests aside)

"Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Davinci Code, etc. are not scholarly works"I don’t think you can reasonably lump them together like that Steve, since one doesn’t claim to be anything other than a work of fiction and the other claims to be the product of research. They are simply entirely different genres.

But neither are in the form of a scholarly study, which involves far deeper research with extensive citations.

In reply to: There are some interesting references to Q....and I think Buron L. Mack's book, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins might be rather out of date. Now you have MY interest. I thought that the book of Q (and I am assuming you are referring to the "Q Gospel" here) had never been found. It's existence logically follows from even a rudimentary analysis of the synoptic Gospels, but no copy of it or even a portion of it has turned up that I have learned about. Did I miss something? Was any of the Q gospel found?

I agree with Steve and some others.The D Code was kind of fun to read, although it fell apart at the end.The biggest problem I had with it was some of the premises were just not true. Not, I'm not going there. What I'm saying is that some of his descriptions of some of the paintings or artifacts were innacurate or exagerated, which made his extrapolations ring hollow, even in the fictional sense.Bottom line, the book was overrated by half the population, and given to much supposed power to bring about the end of Christianity as we know it by the other half. Just a fun piece of fluff it was. Kind of like cotton candy. Tasty and harmless.

No, it's still a hypothetical solution to the two-source hypothesis.

My knowledge on the subject is rudimentary and now out of date, so there's not much more I can say.

“My knowledge on the subject is rudimentary and now out of date, so there's not much more I can say”I think I will record that, for posterity, Steve.

It can happen to the best of us.