A Non-Secret Dossier on the Da Vinci Code

These notes are an orientation to understanding the background to Dan Browns novel, The Da Vinci Code, and to help readers separate historical and theological fact from fiction and misstatements. The heart of the notes is section A, in which some of the main religious assertions of the book are summarized, and then commented on. The second section (B) is a summary of the main source for Dan Browns ideas. I did not bother to critique its ideas, since the used by Brown are critiqued in A. I include it so that readers will know whence Brown derived most of his religious ideas. In sections C, D, E I discuss some of the key pieces In Browns puzzle: (C) the Holy Grail, (D) the Knights Templar, and (E) Gnosticism, gnostic writings and the New Testament. My goal is to give enough responsible historical background so that the reader will be able to separate fact and fiction in Browns novel

Outline
A. The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown B. The Primary Source: Holy Blood, Holy Grail C. The Grail D. The Knights Templar E. Gnosticism and the Gospel of Mary Appendix: I. Elizabeth Lev, The Last Supper Appendix II: Grail Bibliography

Appendix III: Some Further Bibliography from Popular Magazines and Newspapers Appendix IV; Article from Knight Ridder News Service, Twin Falls TimesNews A. Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday, 2003).
For further reviews see the following: US Catholic Nov. 2003 (from feminist perspective); America Dec. 15, 2003 (Gerard OCollins); Commonweal, Sept 12, 2003. In this section, summaries of sections of Browns novel are in regular type, and my

comments are in italics. I number the various points just for easy reference. Page numbers in the novel are given in parentheses. 1. The point of writing thriller novels is to sell a lot of them. Dan Brown clearly succeeded with this book. On the jacket there is a subtitle: A Novel. It is important to remember that it is a novel, not a book of history or theology. The purpose of writing and publishing popular literature is to make money. If one can appeal to curiosity (hidden sexual secrets or ceremonies) or current fashion (feminist readings of history, suspicion of institutions, tradition and authority generally and the Catholic church specifically) or cause controversy (offer ideas which run counter to Christian belief), that will sell more books. 2. Also on the cover is a reproduction of Mona Lisas eyes. There are many ways to read those eyes: I prefer to see them a somewhat playful, and presume that is what Dan Brown was being, rather than trying to convey some sort of theological or historical points. Part of his playfulness is to insist on the factual character of his novels background. Hence, right at the start, he gives credits to a long lists of distinguished institutions and then adds a page called Fact where he lists three things: (i) There is a Priory of Sion (he cites the Dossiers Secrets for this); (ii) there is a controversial Catholic organization (he calls it a Vatican prelature) known as Opus Dei, which built a new headquarters in NYC. 9Cf. p. 175: Opus Dei is a personal prelature of Vatican City, and His Holiness can disperse monies however he sees fit. No law has been broken here.). And (iii) the ambiguous statement: all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate. Im not sure Brown knows what a personal prelature is, but he implies it involves some secret in with the Vatican (Vatican prelature.). Opus Dei is a religious movement (one of a number of similar movements which are quite vigorous sespecially in continental Europe and Latin America). Their membership includes celibate lay and ordained members as well as married associates. The movement has its own bishop, who is not a bishop of a specific place; hence, personal prelature. This is something not found in religious orders and in other movements like Opus Dei. It is true that Opus Dei is criticized for its secrecy and recruiting methods. [For information on these movements, see the informative article by Ian Ker, New Movements and Communities in the Life of the Church, Louvain Studies 27 (2002) 69-95. The Opus Dei website has a little disclaimer, noting that the Da Vinci Code is fiction.

3. Prologue (p. 3). The murdered curator is named Jacques Saunire, who, we learn, was killed by a functionary of Opus Dei, This name derives from the name of the priest who is introduced at the beginning of Holy Blood, Holy Grail By giving this name to the curator, Brown points to his primary source for the bizarre background of his story.

4. The cross on the head of the hi-tech key (p. 145) The head of this key was not the traditional long-stemmed Christian cross but rather was a square crosswith four arms of equal lengthwhich predated Christianity by fifteen hundred years. This kind of cross carried none of he Christians connotations of crucifixion associated with the longerstemmed Latin Cross, originated by the Romans as a torture device. Langdon was always surprised how few Christians ho gazed upon the crucifix realized their symbols violent history was reflected in its very name: cross and crucifix came from the Latin verb cruciareto torture. Actually, Christian crosses have come in many different shapes, including square ones (e.g., the so called crusader cross. Such crosses when used by Christians do have reference to Christs death. The original meaning of the Latin word cruciare was to put to death on the cross, from which derived the meaning to torture. 5. The Priory of Sion (pp. 157-161) was founded in Jerusalem in 1099 by Godefroi de Bouillon, who possessed a powerful secret that had been in his family since the time of Christ. The Priory heard of a cache of documents hidden beneath the ruins of Herods Temple in Jerusalem and founded the Knights Templar to recover and protect these documents. This, not protecting pilgrims, was their real mission. Langdon was hesitant to mention them, because so many conspiracy theories circulated about them. They discovered something there. The Vatican to buy their silence gave them limitless power. The Knights then grew very large and rich and invented modern banking. By the 1300s they were so powerful, Pope Clement decided to do something about them. He worked with King Philippe IV of France to quash them and seize their treasure and the secrets which gave them a hold over the Vatican. However, As the Vatican closed in, the Priory smuggled their documents from Paris preceptory [monastery] by night onto Templar ships in La Rochelle. The secret documents have to do with the Sangreal, the Holy Grail. Most of this paragraph is unfounded assertion derived from Holy Blood, Holy Grail. We will discuss the Templars and their suppression separately later and also the linguistically bogus equivalent Holy Grail = Sang/real/holy blood. 6. Teabing (pp. 216-19), who later turns out to be the evil genius behind the murders, is described as a former British Royal Historian. He had appeared on BBC exposing the explosive history of the Holy Grail. There is no such position as British Royal Historian. Teabing is a stand in, it seems, for Baigent and Leigh who according to their book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, were involved in a BBC program in the 1970s 7. Teabing (p. 229) is asked to explain to Sophie the true nature of the Holy Grail. We are told that the technical name for someone who does know that is a virgin. Teabing says that by not telling her the whole secret story, Robert has robbed her of the climax. He assures Sophie you will never forget your first time.

One can ponder the reasons for inserting this particular bit of dialogue. Much of what Teabing says in these pages borders on the crazy. But putting it in his mouth, Brown seems to distance his heroes from some of the most bizarre assertions. 8. The theological assertions of the book are concentrated in pp. 231-269. They concern the following: (1). The Bible is a product of man, my dear, Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions History has never had a definitive version of the book. The are more than 80 gospels. Constantine, a pagan, collated the Bible as we have it today. He decided to back Christianity for political purposes, hybridizing it with paganism. To further his political agenda, Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christs human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. Those who chose the original history of Christ were the worlds first heretics. This is a mix of distortions. (a) I dont know that there is any evidence that Constantine was involved in formulating an official list of biblical books adopted at Nicaea, though the church historian Eusebius says Constantine did pay for the production of 50 Bibles. Although making a specific official list was significant (and that happened in the fourth century as far as we know), long before that most Catholic author seven before that (as opposed to Gnostics, Marcionites and so forth) were pretty much in agreement about the parameters of the New Testament by the end of the second century, perhaps because they agreed that certain books should be read in church services. If the Muratorian fragment, which probably the majority of scholars believe dates from the end of the second century, contains a list of the NT which is substantially the same as what became the canonical list. For further information see section E below, or, for example, the article Canonicity, by Raymond Brown and Raymond Collins in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (pp. 1034-1054) or The Canon Debate, ed. Lee McDonald and James Sanders (Hendrikcson, 2002), especially the survey of scholarly research by Harry Gamble, pp. 267-294. He notes that most scholars agree that the history of the canon had three somewhat overlapping stages. The first stage, belonging to the late first and second centuries, marks the rise of certain early Christian writings to prominent use and authorityabove all the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, and the letters of Paul. In the second stage, belonging to the later second and third centuries but extending also into the early fourth century, additional documents come increasingly into the picture and are cited and used alongside these. The third stage, occurring in the fourth century, is characterized by efforts to fix precisely the boundary between authoritative books and non-authoritative books. (b) Regarding who wrote the Bible, Leabing presents a false dichotomy: Catholics believe that the Bible is the Word of God in human words. (c) In fact, the four canonical gospels of our New Testament present Jesus in a much more human guise than most of the Gnostic writings and apocryphal gospels. The Gnostics tended to want to keep God at arms length from material reality. Well return to them later.

(2) Nothing in Christianity is original. December 25, for example, is the birthday of Mithras, Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysius. The question of why December 25 was chosen as the date for Christmas is not settled. Various religions see some significance between the (re)birth of God and the Winter solstice, and Christmas may have been dated when it was to give a Christian counterweight to the Roman Saturnalia (New Years festivities) and the feast of Sol Invictus, which is not the same thing as hybridizing Christianity and paganism. I dont think there is any hard evidence for the celebration of Christmas as early as Constantines lifetime. (3) Constantine shifted the Christianity holiday from Saturday to Sunday, so that it would coincide with the pagans veneration of the day of the sun. The Christian celebration of Sunday is much older than Constantine and was based on the fact that Christ rose on the third day. Some early Christians celebrated both Saturday and Sunday. (4) Until the Council of Nicaea (325) Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet. His divinity was voted on by a close vote; a crucial step for unifying the empire and given the new Vatican power base. It was all about power. This is nonsense. Jesus is clearly called God in several passages in the New Testament, and in authors from the earliest days of the church (e.g. Ignatius of Antioch, ca. 100-115 AD) and other second and third century Christian author. See Raymond Brown, Jesus, God and Man. (5) Some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate survived. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s; and Coptic Scrolls at Nag Hammadi in 1945. In addition to telling the true Grail story, these documents speak of Christs ministry in very human terms. Of course, the Vatican, in keeping with their tradition of misinformation, tried very hard to suppress the release of these scrolls. Almost all scholars think that there is no reference to Christianity in the Dead Sea Scroll Documents. Baigent and Leigh, Dead Sea Scrolls Deception (1991) claim that Catholics deliberately deceived the world about the contents of the scrolls. They follow especially John Allegro, an atheist who was one of the scholars originally connected with the study and publications of scrolls and author of The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross: A Study of the Nature and the Origins of Christianity within the Fertility Cults of the Ancient Near. On this controversy see reviews of Dead Sea Scrolls Deception by Joseph Fitzmyer, in Theological Studies 53 (1992) 180, What They Found in the Caves, Commonweal, 18 December 1992, 13-16, and The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Latest Form of Catholic Bashing, America, 166 (1/15/92) 119ff. (6) The grail was a person (grail shape suggests a symbol for female); to protect the male church, the sacred feminine was demonized and called unclean; the grail is symbolic of the lost goddess We will discuss the grail legend later and see that at its origins in Chrtien de Troyes, the grail was a dish, which is what the French word for grail meant. The worship of gods and goddesses (and the sexual activity of pagan temple priestesses) had already been thoroughly condemned by the Hebrew prophets long before Christianity

came on the scene. Christianity was sometimes misogynist; one thinks of Jeromes use of some of the misogynist topoi of pagan Roman writers and the limitations put on womens involvement in medieval society, but human stupidity can account for that, without any need to posit a conspiracy to protect the male [part of] the church from the truth about Mary Magdalene. (7) This person identical with the Grail was Mary Magdalene (whom Teabing claims is depicted next to Christ in Da Vincis Last Supper. Whether it is or not, an art history issue, as is Teabings further explanation of the painting; see Appendix I). The early church deliberately defamed Mary Magdalene by calling her a prostitute, when in fact she was married to Jesus. The latter is a matter of historical record, and Da Vinci certainly knew it. The Catholic priest Victor Saxer spent much of his scholarly life studying the legend of Mary Magdalene and the biblical references to her. Like most othes today, he concluded that Mary Magdalene, Mary the sister of Martha, and the woman who anointed Jesus, were three different people. If that is so, then in the NT Mary Magdalene is presented as the one from whom Jesus cast out seven devils, the leader of the women who traveled with Jesus and the disciples and ministered to them, and one of those present at the foot of the cross and one to whom Jesus appeared on Easter morning. Perhaps the identification of the three different persons (which in fact Baigent and Leigh endorse; see below) may have been the result of hostility toward women, but it might equally have been an honest mistake. Although Mary Magdalene is not called a sinner, the woman who anointed Jesus feet is, and that was interpreted as meaning prostitute,which may be correct, but it could be evidence of prejudice, prurient mind, or just an honest mistake. That Mary was married to Jesus is NOT a matter of historical record, and there is no reason to think Leonardo da Vinci ever entertained such an idea. (8) The historical record of Jesus marriage is in the Gnostic gospels from Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea scrolls. Teabing cites the Gospel of Philip which he interprets to say that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. He says there are countless references to Jesus and Magdalenes union. That has been explored ad nauseam by modern historians. Then he cites the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. In the unaltered gospels, Mary Magdalene and her offspring are the rock on which the church was to be built. She was of he tribe of Benjamin and of royal descent. Neither of these Gnostic writings clearly says Mary was married, and they are the only two possible references (there are not countless references and modern historians hardly every even raise the issue). I am not aware of any reliable evidence about what tribe Mary Magdalene was from. (9) Teabing then says that the Holy Grail = bloodline of Jesus has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians. He mentions The Templar Revelation (Picknet and Prince; based on Holy Blood, Holy Grail), The Woman with the Alabaster Jar (Margaret Starbird) The Goddess in the Gospels (Margaret Starbird), and Holy Blood, Holy Grail. We are informed that the Vatican, which had been trying to hide the secret since the fourth century, was outraged by these books. No reputable scholar that I know of has ever suggested that the Holy Grail is the bloodline of Christ. I am not aware of any Vatican reaction to any of these books, to which scholars have paid almost no attention.

(10) Mary Magdalene has been known by many pseudonyms: chalice, Holy Grail, Rose. The word rose is identical in many languages (English, French, German) and is an anagram for Eros. It seems odd to make a big deal out of this, since the in Latin, Italian, Spanish, etc., the word for rose is rosa, and thus the anagram (anagrams are a stock-in-trade of conspiracy theories) doesnt worky in them (11) The Sangreal [sic] is said to include Jesus own chronicle of his ministry: Most people did in those days. Most people were illiterate and so not in a position to keep a diary; there is no reason to think that Jesus, much less Mary Magdalene, ever wrote anything. (12) Teabing says that the world is currently passing from the Age of Pisces (the fish) to the Age of Aquarius. The Piscean ideal believes that man must be told what to do by higher powers because man is incapable of thinking for himself. Hence it has been a time of fervent religion. Now, however, we are entering the Age of Aquarius whose ideals claim that man will learn the truth and be able to think for himself. The Church calls this transitional period the End of Days. Passing over the invocation of astrology, we might note the appeal to thinking for oneself vs. faith. This is not the place to theologize about faith, but one might compare favorably the grounds for believing in Jesus with those for believing in the Secret Dossiers. 9. Hieros gamos (307-309). When Sophie was in college she came home and found a group of men and women in robes, two of whom were engaged in sexual intercourse: one of them was her grandfather (Saunire, the other a woman straddling him). Langdon explains that this was a sacred marriage union. [Langdon explained that although what she saw probably looked like a sex ritual, Hieros Gamos had nothing to do with eroticism. It was a spiritual act. Historically, intercourse was the act through which male and female experienced God. Early Jews believed the Temple housed not only the male Yahweh, but his female consort, Shekinah. Men came to the temple and made love with the priestesses and experienced the divine. YHWH is derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah. For the early Church mankinds use of sex to commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base. It left the church out the loop, undermining their self-proclaimed status as the sole conduit to God. For obvious reasons, they worked to demonize sex. Other major religions did the same. We already mentioned the Old Testament hostility toward such practices. Langdon explanation that it involved no eroticism sounds a bid farfetched. However, he is certainly correct (and it is Catholic teaching) that marital intercourse can be a sacrament of Gods love. Shekinah is according to G. OCollins, a non-biblical word found in the later rabbinic writings, which refers to the nearness of God to his people and not to some female consort. The explanation of Jehovah is sheer nonsense: Jehovah is an artificial form of the YHWH obtained by adding to those consonants the vowels for the word Adonai (M Lord). Readers of the Hebrew Bible were not supposed to pronounce the named Yahweh, so instead when they came to it they said Adonai.

10. Teabing (339): The Templars ignored the traditional Christian cruciform layout and built a perfectly circular church in honor of the son. Round churches were common in the Eastern Empire, including Palestine, long before the Templars went there, and were just as traditional and cruciform ones. Conclsuion: The Grail legend has a long history in European literature, but Dan Brown was not writing literature or history, but a thriller. He probably didnt spend much time reading Chrtien de Troyes or Tennyson. His source was the following book, which is written much like a thriller, with each chapter and section ending up in the air, leaving you hanging, but insinuating the thesis that The Holy Grail was (and is) the bloodline of Christ.

B. Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, Holy Blood, Holy Grail: The Secret History of Christ. The Shocking Legacy of the Grail (1982; New York: Delta, 2004).
1. Holy Blood, Holy Grail. What follows is an outline of the book, sufficient to show where many of Browns ideas came from. The ideas and assertions that Brown incorporated into his book are discussed above. Part I: The Mystery Ch. 1. Village of Mystery. Rennes-le-Chteau. In late 19th c. priest there was named Brenger Saunire. He found some strange writings (evidently written by an 18th c. priest there, Antoine Bigou) while remodeling the church. He seems to have come across some secret. He spent a lot of money. Did he find treasures left by Templars, Cathars or Merovingian kings? Was the he blackmailing the Vatican? Ch. 2: Cathars, a heretical group, were strong in that area. They are said to have hidden their treasure before being besieged by a crusading army, and also to have snuck out another treasure (not monetary?) during the siege? According to the authors, they had the idea Jesus was the prophet of Amor (Latin=love), which is opposite of Roma (Latin=Rome=corrupt Roman church). Tenuous connection of the Cathars to the story of the Holy Grail? [Note: The authors refer to St. Dominic (founder of the Dominicans) as a Spanish fanatic. Actually, he tried to convert the Cathars by preaching, rather than by force.] Ch. 3: Templars, a military order founded ca. 1115, with mission to protect pilgrims to Holy Land; had headquarters on/near temple mount in Jerusalem; supported by St. Bernard. Authors suggest they had secret ties with Islam and with Cathars. Templars and Bernards Cistercians grew very rapidly in middle half of 12th century. Was there a third order behind them, for which they served as a kind of front? Philip, King of France, with acquiescence of Pope Clement V, abolished the Templars, accusing them of various awful thing. The last head of the Templars, Jacques de Molay, was executed in March, 1314. Had been Templar establishments in vicinity of Rennes-le-Chteau.[The authors write: According to tradition he called his persecutorsPope Clement and King Philippeto join him and account for themselves before the court of God within the year.

Within a month Pope Clement was dead, supposedly from a sudden onslaught of dysentery. By the end if the year Philippe was dead as well, from causes that remain obscure to this day. There is, of course, no need to look for supernatural explanations. The Templars possessed great expertise in the use of poisons.] Ch. 4 Secret documents. From 1956ff. various documents appeared in print or otherwise. [The authors comment, with a description which might well describe their book: The result has been an ever-proliferating network of seductive allusions, provocative hints, suggestive cross-references and connections. In confronting the welter of data now available, the reader may well feel he is being toyed withor being ingeniously and skillfully led from conclusion to conclusion by successive carrots dangled before his nose.] One of the documents says: From she who I desire to liberate, there wafts towards me the fragrance of the perfume which impregnates the Sepulcher. Formerly, some named her: ISIS, queen of all sources benevolent. Come unto me all ye who suffer and are afflicted and I shall give ye rest. To others, she is Magdalene, of the celebrated vase filled with haling balm. The initiated know her true name: Notre Dame des Cross. Authors say of the documents: They are presented as [sic] indisputable historical fact and can be summarized as follows. (1) There was a secret order behind the Knights Templar = The Priory of Sion. (2) This Priory of Sion has lasted till the present, and has been directed by a series of famous men and has had great influence. (3) It aim is to restore the Merovingian dynasty. Part II: The Secret Society This long section (pp. 111-282) purports to be a history of the workings of the Priory of Sion. It is somewhat tedious, drawing on various Secret Documents. The point is that the society has been at work since the 12 th century, striving to reinstate the Merovingian Dynasty which was supplanted by the Carolingians. The authors provide of list of the 23 heads of the Priory of Sion, all of whom were called Jean or Jeanne, and note that the 23rd dead, Jean Cocteau, died the same year as Pope John XXIII. They also suggest that both the Catholic Modernists of the early 20th century and the Traditionalists of Archbishop Lefevre may have had connections with the Priory of Sion, and that Merovingians may have been descended from the tribe of Benjamin which went from Palestine to Arcadia in Greece. Part III: The Bloodline Ch. 11: The Holy Grail. They introduce this chapter with the following paragraph which sets the reader up for what follows. By their contemporaries, for example, the Cathars were believed to have been in possession of he Grail. The Templars, too, were often regarded as the Grails custodians; and the Grail romances had originally issued form the court of the count of Champagne, who was intimately associated with the foundation of the Knights Templar. When the Templars were suppressed, moreover, the bizarre heads they supposedly worshiped enjoyed, according to the official Inquisition reports, many of the attributes traditionally [!] ascribed to the Grailproviding sustenance, for example, and imbuing the land with fertility.

Most twentieth-century scholarship concurs in the belief that the Grail romances rest ultimately on a pagan foundation [true]a ritual connected with the cycle of the seasons, the death and rebirth of the year. In its most primordial origins it would appear to involve a vegetation cult, closely related in form to, if not directly derived from, those of Tammuz, Attis, Adonis, and Osiris in the Middle East [?] By Malorys Time, the Grail was assumed to be the cup of the Last Supper, in which Joseph of Arimathea later caught Jesus blood. According to some accounts it was brought to Glastonbury by Joseph or to France by Mary Magdalene. The authors then discuss the Grail stories of Chrtien and Robert de Boron, the anonymous Perlesvaus (which the authors associate with the Templars), and finally Wolfram von Eschenbachs Parzival (1195-1216). For his tale, Wolfram gives shadowy sources, which the authors take very seriously. Wolfram implies the grail is a stone; on Good Friday, a dove brings a small white wafer and leaves it on it. The authors say the dove is a reference to Mary Magdalene. The grail, they deduce, was connected with both the Templars and a specific family. They think that Chretiens assertion that Percival was in Saudone or Sinadon, and Wolframs that Parzival comes Waleis, refer not to Snowdon in Wales, but to Sion in Valais in Switzerland. Then, from what they regard as various hints, the authors conclude that the evidence points to the Grail being connected with royal blood (Sang raal) connected with the Merovingian dynasty and Jesus himself and Mary Magdalene. Thus, at the end of the chapter they formulate that Mary Magdalen was Jesus wife, that after the Crucifixion Mary Magdalen, with a least one child was smuggled to Gaul, so that there is bloodline descended from Jesus which issued in the Merovingian dynasty. Chapter 12. The Priest-King Who Never Ruled. Turning to the NT, they find contradictions in the NT. They conclude that the Bible is a highly questionable authority, an arbitrary selection of works formulated by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367. They believe that Johns gospel is the most historically accurate. Next, they go looking for hints that Jesus was married. They decide that Jesus didnt advocate celibacy, and so there is no reason to suppose that he practiced it. They figure the marriage at Cana was Jesus own wedding. They think the best candidate for his wife is Mary Magdalene, whom, oddly, they identify with the sinful woman who anoints Jesus, and whom they suggest was regarded as a sinner because she was a member of a pagan cult dedicated to Ishtar or Astarte. Another candidate is Mary, the sister of Martha, who has chosen the good part. In any other context one would not hesitate to interpret this reply as an allusion to a marriage. They conclude that all three women were the same, which is exactly what almost all modern scholars deny. Lazarus, Jesus brother-in-law, is the beloved disciple. With Mary Magdalene, he later went to Marseilles. Barabbas was one of their children. In fact, Jesus faked his owndeath, and didnt actually die on the cross. Chapter 13. The Secret the Church Forbade. The New Testament offers a portrait of Jesus and his age that conforms to the needs of certain vested interests. After his crucifixion, his family was squeezed out by other followers who divinized Jesus to make him acceptable to a Roman audience. Irenaeus crystallized the new orthodoxy, especially against the Gnostics. Under Constantine, the Council of Nicaea decided by vote that Jesus was a God. Consantine commissioned new versions of

Christian documents, which were altered and came to be the New Testament. Various apocryphal (non-canonical) books are called in to buttress the authors claims. Jesus was probably a Zealot. Later Christians put blame for his death on the Jews. It was Jesus family who arranged his fake and private crucifixion with the collusion of Pilate; they probably had Essene connections. The Gnostic documents discovered at Nag Hammadi suggest that Mary Magdalene had a special role, which brought her into conflict with the male disciples. Especially significant in the authors estimate are the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Philip. Chapter 14. The Grail Dynasty. Most of the early heresies, the authors claim, were essentially Gnostic, anti-hierarchical, dualist, and considered Jesus to be merely human. They think that the most important of these heresies was Manicheeism, which they believe was established in southern France and centuries later gave rise to Catharism. Turning to Arianism, the authors make the outlandish claim that When the Merovingians rose to power during the fifth century, virtually every bishopric in Christendom was either Arian or vacant. They then go on to argue that there was a Jewish kingdom in southern France wherein Jesus bloodline lived on. Jesus descendants intermarried with the royal house of the Merovingians. In recognizing Clovis, the church knowingly, if tacitly acknowledged this. The church later betrayed the Merovingians, and it was to the churchs interest to suppress knowledge of Jesus descendants. Godefroi of Boullion, the crusader king, was one of them. The Holy Grail was (i) Jesus bloodline and descendants (Sang real) and (ii) Mary Magdalens womb (the vessel which received and contained Jesus blood). Middle Ages confused Mary Magdalene and the Blessed Virgin Mary. (iii) the Holy Grail may have been records showing all this, found at the Temple in Jerusalem by the Knights Templar, and then hidden around Rennes-le-Chteau. Conclusion: The authors state that their idea remains a plausible hypothesis, but they believe that the Priory of Sion does have incontrovertible proof, if it wished to share it. 2. Other Works by Baigent. Baigent and associates are specialists in religious conspiracy literature. Here is some information on some of their other efforts. a. The Messianic Legacy. Comment from review in Publishers Weekly: The trio of authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (1982), which traced a Merovingian bloodline for Jesus, continue their inquiry into the origins of Christianity in this sequel. With zeal they search many contexts for the Jesus of history, rather than the Christ of faith, and begin by discounting the Gospels as reliable historical documents. From material culled from many disciplines, they arrive at a speculative, controversial image of Jesus greatly at variance with received Christian tradition. As in the earlier book, the authors rely heavily on the mysterious Prieur de Sion, alleged custodian of the Holy Grail. The inquiry presented here is an interesting melange of the factual and the

imagined, of centuries-connected clues and serendipitous happenings involving such disparate offices as the CIA, the Vatican and the Mafia, among many. Those who believe in global conspiracies will enjoy the intrigue; others may be rightfully bemused. b. Description from the publishers: Holy Blood, Holy Grail rocked the very foundations of Christianity. Now four more years of research have uncovered shocking material and its earthshaking consequences. What extraordinary meaning lies behind Jesus' title "King of the Jews"? Was there more than one Christ? Who really constituted Jesus' following and what were the real identities of Simon Peter and Judas Iscariot? Who now has the ancient treasure of the Temple of Jerusalem? What is the true source of today's Christian "Fundamentalism"? What links the Vatican, the CIA, the KGB, the Mafia, Freemasonry, and the Knights Templar? What is the stunning goal of the European secret society that traces its lineage back to Christ and the House of David? The Messianic Legacy. Here is the book that reveals the answers to these intriguing, potentially explosive questions. Utilizing the same meticulous research that catapulted their first book onto the best seller lists, the authors again bring an enlightening message of truth and urgent importanceto Christians and non-Christians the world over. b. The Temple and the Lodge (is about purported connections between Templars and Freemasons and the role of the latter among founding fathers of United States). c. Dead Sea Scroll Deception See the references and comments above under A. 8 (5). Fitzmyer noted that the tabloid, Sun (Feb. 18, 1992) contained the following: A nuclear disaster will leave millions dead or homeless and America will find itself going to war in 1992, according to predictions gleaned from the mysterious Dead Sea Scrollsthe scrolls include eyepopping predictions for top celebrities like Kevin Costner and Madonna. Although Ftizmyer tries to stay calm and detached, he does allow himself to say that if there is a Dead Sea Scroll Deception, this book is it.

C. The Grail Legend: Stages in its Development

The Holy Grail was introduced into Western literature by Chrtien de Troyes, whose poem which mentions the grail will be introduced below. He and many other poets and romance-writers of the Middle Ages connected the grail with the Arthurian legends, made popular through Geoffrey of Monmouths History of the King of Britian. The irony is that the grail was a wonderful literary image which developed in many directions, but most particularly in conjunction with idea of quest for or pilgrimage toward an ideal. Baigent and Brown and others like them take a literary figure and interpret it as an historical reality, What follows will include five sections: (1) Geoffrey of Monmouth,

(2) Chrtiens sources, (3) Chrtiens grail poem and its immediate continuators, (4) later uses of the story of the grail. 1. Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain (tr. Lewis Thorpe. 1966; New York: Penguin, 1984). The author, using oral or literary Welsh sources, completed a highly imaginative history of Britain about 1136. Among his gifts to posterity are Merlin and King Arthur. A large outpouring of poetic retellings of the stories of Arthur emerged soon afterwards. We will be concerned below with Chrtien de Troyes, but there were also other French poets, as well as poets like Hartmann von Aue and Wolfram von Eschenbach in Germany. There followed many prose adaptations, including Thomas Malorys Morte dArthur. 2. Chrtiens sources: Our particular concern is the grail legend, which was to become a prominent part of the King Arthur material, after being introduced in Chrtien de Troyes. Behind Chrtiens Conte du Graal or Perceval lies a complex oral and written prehistory, most of which must be reconstructed conjecturally. Medieval poets and prose authors didnt try to be different or create material from scratch; they liked to weave together and reshape existing material. According to D.D.R. Owen, The Evolution of the Grail Legend, St. Andrews University Publications No. LLVIII (Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd, 1968), the origins of Chrtiens Conte du Graal are found in Ireland. Here are some elements of Irish stories that found their way to Chrtien. Here are a few examples of the complex antecedents of Chretiens story: (1) In the Irish saga, The Cattle-Raid of Cooley, young Cu Chulainn ignores his mothers pleas ad sets out for the royal court carrying a javelin (and some toys). After some exploits he obtains arms from the king and sets out on a series of exploits. (2) In the Irish story The Phantoms Frenzy, Conn of the Hundred Battles is invited to the kings house where a girl is seated next to a vessel of gold, and before here is a silver vat with corners of gold, and a golden cup. The girl, whose name is the Sovereignty of Ireland served food and the cup to Conn. This Irish material was transmitted to Welsh and Breton storytellers (cyfarwyddiaid). One example: Cullwch and Olwen, in which, after a secluded youth, the hero rides into Arthur's court, with two silver spears in his hand, enters in spite of opposition from Cei (Kay) and demands that the king trim his hair. From the Welsh a these stories were transmitted to the Anglo-French aristocracy of England and to France. One mix of tales was situated at Caer Seint (ancient Segontium) near Snowdon, with which, Geoffrey of Monmouth reports, some magical cups were connected. The story was the source of a the tale of The Fair Unknown, (one version of which is called Le bel inconnu) one version of which seems to have been used by Chrtien in writing his Conte du Graal, and so formed the bridge linking Chrtiens story with the earlier Welsh and ultimately Irish material. 3. Chrtien de Troyes, The Story of the Grail [Conte du Graal] Perceval) [Chrtien de Troyes, Arthurian Romances, tr. William Kilber. New York: Penguin, 1991, pp. 381494. There are many other translations listed on p. 28, e.g., D. D. R. Owen, Chrtien de Troyes, Arthurian Romances. London: Dent, 1987].

French Romances, including Chretiens, are about chivalry and courtoisie, that is, about the institution of knighthood and the refinements of etiquette and love as these were understood in aristocratic French circles. With D.D.R. Owen, one can read Chrtiens The Story of the Grail as the formation of Perceval into a model of chilvaric manners. Chrtiens method was to take existing material (matire), rearrange it (give it a new conjointure), which would contain some moral or general truth (sen).Two of Chrtiens long poetic romances have parallels in the Welsh compilation called Mabinogion: Gereint>Erec, The Lady of the Fountain >Yvain. There are parallels as well between Peredur in the Mabinogion and The Story of the Grail, though in this case the two seem to have drawn on similar sources and Peredur seems to have borrowed also from The Story of the Grail. ` Here is Chrtiens story. Perceval is a very untutored Welsh boy who meets some knights and decides he wants to leave his mother and home and go become a knight. His mother faints when he is leaving (in fact, she dies). He goes to King Arthurs court. At Arthurs court a maiden laughs in joy as meeting him, and said he would be the greatest knight. . She hadnt laughed for six years. Kay, a courtier and knight is angered by her laughing, clouts her and kicks a jester into the fireplace. Perceval will perform many knightly deeds on the way to restoring this maidens honor. . Perceval goes out of the castle and kills a knight in red armor with a javelin, puts on the red armor and goes on adventures. A mentor (Gornemant de Goort) teaches him about being a knight and tells him to be very careful about talking too much. Perceval has many knightly adventures saving ladies in distress and so forth, while vaguely seeking to find his mother. Finally, he comes to a deep stream where two men are fishing in a boat. One offers him lodging at the neighbor castle. Perceval goes there and is greeted by the lord of the castle, who is unable to rise to greet him. A squire brings the lord a sword sent by his niece, which the lord then gives to Perceval, Then another squire came forth from a chamber carrying a white lance by the middle of its shaft; he passed between the fire and those seated upon the bed. Everyone in the hall saw the white lance with its white point from whose tip there issued a drop of blood, and this red drop flowed down the squires hand. The youth who had come there that night [Perceval] observed this marvel but refrained form asking how it came about, for he recalled the admonishment given by the gentleman who had knighted him that if he asked they would consider him uncouth, and therefore he did not ask. Then two other squires entered holding in their hands candelabra of pure gold, crafted with enamel inlays. A maiden accompanying the two young men was carrying a grail [plate/dish] with her two hands; she was beautiful, noble, and richly attired. After she had entered the hall carrying the grail the room was so brightly illuminated that the candles lost their brilliance like stars and the moon when the sun rises. After her came another maiden carrying a silver carving platter. The grail, which was introduced first, was of fine pure gold. Set in the grail

were precious stones of many kinds, the best and costliest to be found in earth and sea: the grails stones were finer than any others in the world, without any doubt. The grail passed by like the lance; they passed in front of the bed and into another chamber. The young knight watched them pass by but did not dare ask who was served from the grail, for in his heart he always held the wise gentlemans advice. Yet I fear that this may be to his misfortune, for I have heard it said that at times it is just as wrong to keep too silent as to talk too much. [pp. 420-21]. Un graal ente ses deus mains Une damoisele tenoit, Qui avec les valls venoit, Bele et gente et bien acesmee. Qunt ele fu laiens entre Atot le graal quele tint, Une si grans clartez i vint Quausi perdirent les chandoiles Lor claret come les estoiles Font quant solaus lieve ou la lune Aprs celi en revint une Qui tint un tailleoir dargant (ll. 3220-31). Next, Perceval meets a maiden holding the decapitated body of her knight. She tells Perceval that the lord of the castle he just left is a king who was injured so he cant do much sport except fish. He is the Fisher-King. She tells Perceval he did ill by not asking about the bleeding lance and the grail; if he had asked, he could have healed the Fisher-King, who now will die. Perceval will suffer many troubles now. The ultimate cause is that he left his mother so abruptly, and as a result she fainted and died. This maid reveals that she is Percevals cousin. Later, at Arthurs court, an ugly damsel tells Perceval that he didnt make the effort to catch hold of Fortune when he met her. He didnt ask why the drop of blood flowed from the tip of the white shaft, or what rich man was served from the grail. Wretched is the man who sees that the propitious hour has come but waits for a still better one. All sorts of bad things will happen because he didnt ask and the king will not cured and rule the kingdom. The story then switches to Sir Gawain for a long while. Then, in a brief interlude in the mist of this long account of Sir Gawain, Perceval, who has lost his memory, meets some people in penitential garb, and learns that it is Good Friday, the significance of which the penitents have to tell him, because he has lost his memory. Perceval repents his neglect and goes to a hermit. The hermit repeats what the ugly damsel had told Perceval, but adds that the man who served from the grail is the hermits brother. He tells Perceval: Your mother was his sister and mine. And the rich Fisher King is the son of the king who served from the grail. This king is served a single (Eucharistic) host which sustains and comforts him; he is so holy that he has lived for twelve years like this, without ever leaving the room into which you saw the grail enter. [459-460]

This last episode regarding Perceval, stuck uncomfortably in the midst of the long section on Sir Gawain, which itself doesnt fit very neatly with the preceding story of Perceval, may well have been inserted by someone else, perhaps someone very interested in Jesus crucifixion (who possibly also interpolated the second grail incident in the First Continuation also. It marks the beginning of a trend to give a Christian, theological meaning to what seems to have been a fairly secular story. Chrtiens poetic story breaks off in mid-sentence. There exist four continuations: The First Continuation (late 12thc.). Sir Gawain goes to the Grail Castle, where he observes a grail procession which differs in important details from that which Chrtien says Perceval saw. For one thing, he sees a bier covered with a silk cloth; there is a body in the bier and a broken sword upon the cloth. Later, Gawain returns again to the Grail castle and learns that the bleeding lance is the one with which Longinus pierced Christ's side at the crucifixion. During this visit, the grail serves the feast of its own accord. Some manuscripts of this continuation say that the grail was used by Joseph of Arimathea to catch Jesus blood at the crucifixion. This latter may be an interpolation by someone who, observing the Passion reference given the lance, wished to do the same for the grail, which hitherto has been neither ciborium nor chalice. [The Holy Lance was thought to have been discovered in 1098; and a relic of the Precious Blood was taken to Brugge by the father of Count Philip of Flanders, who was the patron of Chrtiens poem.] The Second Continuation (Wauchier de Denain, 1190s). Perceval returns to his mothers castle ten years after having left it. Then at the end returns to the Grail castle, joins the two pieces of the broken sword, leaving just a tiny nick. But the story ends before the Fisher King can explain the meaning of the Grail. Manessier Continuation (1214-1227). The Fisher King explains that the lance is Longinus; the grail was used by Joseph of Arimathea to catch Christs blood; the trencher covered the grail so that the holy blood would not be exposed. After many adventures, Perceval succeeds the Fisher King. He restores the land in seven years; then retires to hermitage, where he lives another ten years, sustained only by the grail. When he dies, the Holy Grail and lance and trencher accompany his soul to heaven and will never again be seen on earth. (4) Gerbert de Montreuil Continuation (1226-1230). In this story, Perceval finally marries Blancheflor, but on their wedding night they vow themselves to virginity to win paradise. Then Perceval arrives at the Grail castle and mends the notch in the sword and is said to have the secrets of the grail revealed to him. But the explanation is not given in the text. Robert de Boron, in his Joseph dArimathie, written about the same time, also says that the grail contained the Precious Blood, received by Joseph of Arimathea and then by his brother-in-law, Bron, to England. The grail was the chalice used at the last super. Joseph

hid it after the crucifixion and then spent time in prison. He is the first one to clearly state that the Grail emitted a bright light (in Chrtien it is more likely that maiden who glows). 4. The Later History of the Grail. D.D.R, Owens observes of the incident in the castle of the Fisher King that Chrtien can scarcely have guessed the impact it would have on posterity or the fantastic inventions of writers and, alas, scholars, to which it was to give rise. Once the Christian interpretation was given to the Grail, then the search for the Holy Grail could be a metaphor for the search for holiness. Percivale, in Tennysons The Holy Grail, (Idylls of the King) explains: "Nay," said the knight; "for no such passion mine. But the sweet vision of the Holy Grail Drove me from all vainglories, rivalries, And earthly heats that spring and sparkle out Among us in the jousts, while women watch Who wins, who falls; and waste the spiritual strength Within us, better offered up to Heaven." .... "The cup, the cup itself, from which our Lord Drank at the last sad supper with his own. This, from the blessed land of Aromat-After the day of darkness, when the dead Went wandering o'er Moriah--the good saint Arimathaean Joseph, journeying brought To Glastonbury, where the winter thorn Blossoms at Christmas, mindful of our Lord. ........ I saw the spiritual city and all her spires And gateways in a glory like one pearl-No larger, though the goal of all the saints-Strike from the sea; and from the star there shot A rose-red sparkle to the city, and there Dwelt, and I knew it was the Holy Grail, Which never eyes on earth again shall see. T. S. Eliot , Four Quartets recalls the Fisher King: I sat upon the shore / Fishing, with the arid plain behind me Shall I at least set my leads in order? See also: Richard Barber, The Holy Grail: Imagination and Belief (Allen Lane), reviewed in The Tablet 31 January 2004.

D. The Knights Templar

Bibliography: Few historical subjects have led to more nonsense than the Templars, and much of it finds its way into The Da Vinci Code. Malcolm Barber concludes his serious study of their history with a chapter detailing all the myths that later grew up about the Templars. Some connected them with Gnosticism, others with the Cathars, still others with Islam. Sir Walter Scott contributed to the distorted image of the Templars in England. He concludes that chapter and his book with a wonderful paragraph: The Templar myths have therefore proved extremely durable and their contribution to the modern image of the real Templars arguably as powerful as that of their documented history between 1119 and 1314. The longevity of these myths perhaps, like Gnosticism, relates to their flexibility, for they have been used by both conservative and radical proponents of the conspiracy theory of history, by romantics imbued with nostalgia for a lost medieval past, by Freemasons seeking a colourful history to justify their penchant for quasi-religious ritual and play-acting, and by charlatans who seek profit in exploiting the gullible. In Umberto Ecos novel, Foucaulds Pendulum one of the characters tells how recognized a lunatic: For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all ide fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templar. Here we need look only at the beginning and end of this order of monk-knights. We can rely on three books: Malcolm Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (1994; New York: Cambridge UP, 2000); Malcolm Barber, Trial of the Templars (NY: Cambridge, 1978); Desmond Seward, The Monks of War: The Military Religious Orders (1972; rev. ed. Penguin, 1995). A quick look at the history section of Barnes and Noble revealed that in contained seven books on the Templars, all of them the work of authors falling under Ecos definition of lunatic. Some of the Grand Masters of the Temple Hugh of Payns, 1119-1136 Robert of Craon,1136-1149 Everard des Barres, 1149-1152 Bernard of Tremelay, 1153 Andre of Montbard, 1154-1156 Bernard of Blancfort, 1156-1159 James of Molay, c. 1293-1314. Origins According to William of Tyre (d. c. 1186), our best source about their origins, certain noble knights, devoted to God, took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience (after the manner of regular canons) at the hands of Warmund, patriarch of Jerusalem. King Baldwin II gave them a base in his palace, to the south side of the Temple platform.

Their mission: they should maintain, as far as they could, the roads and highways against the ambushes of thieves and attackers, especially in regard to the safety of pilgrims. They thus complemented the Hospitallers, who provided shelter and medical care for pilgrims, with whom they had close affinities from the beginning. A charter of Thierry, Count of Flanders, made in 1128 in the presence of Hugh of Payns, says it was made 9 years after the Orders foundation. The converging evidence suggests they were founded in 1120. William of Tyre says that they had only 9 members by the Council of Troyes (1129 and were very poor. He may well be exaggerating. They had close connections with the Court of Champagne, for Payns is only 8 miles from Troyes, an Hugh, Count of Champagne, joined them about 1125. Hugh of Payns went to the West in 1127/28 to recruit knights and seek donations, an effort at which he was very successful. With St. Bernards support the order was recognized at the Council of Troyes, where they were given a strict rule. All in the order owed obedience to the Master, although the Order as a whole was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Jerusalem. The core of the membership was professed knights, but they were supported by many other levels of membership. During the 13th century the order may have had as many as 7000 knights, but other there were many more members of other sorts (squires, temporary members, serving brothers and so forth). Donations of land and estates in the West led to the formation of provinces there, such as the Hospitallers had. At their peak, the Templars controlled about 900 castles. The order established many local houses between 1129 and 1150, in the northern part of France, Provence, Italy, England and the Iberian Peninsula. There is less evidence of their activity in Outremer, but it must have been more extensive than what we know. Concept. The idea of an order of monk-knights met with opposition from some Christian leaders, but it fit well with the crusading zeal of the time and the rising devotion to the places where Christ lived. Both St. Bernard and Guigo the fifth prior of the Grande Chartreuse, wrote to encourage and caution the Templars. Three papal bulls between 1139 and 1145 were issued in support of the Order of Knights Templar. The popes granted them privileges similar to those of other orders including the right to have priests in the order, privileges that John of Salisbury criticized. End On March 22, 1312, at the Council of Vienne, Pope Clement V declared the Order of the Temple abolished. That this should have happened is a puzzle. Jacques de Vitry, Bishop of acre (1216-1228) praised their piety and military bravery. Wolfram von Eschenbach (d. 1225) made them defenders of the Grail (in his poem, it was a stone). However, later critics complained about the Orders independence of local authority and wondered if the vast amount of money it took to keep them going was worth it, granted their limited success in Outremer. The fall of Acre in 1291 increased the criticism, and some called for a consolidation of the Hospitallers and the Templars. Jacques de Molay argued against such a consolidation, but Ramon Lull argued for it. There were also conflicts about how future crusades should be conducted, in which de Molay was involved, and between the Templars in Cyprus and the authorities there. Meanwhile, the crusading strategy put more

emphasis on sea power. However, there is little in all this that indicates anyone thought the Templars were so corrupt they should be suppressed. The initiative for their demise should be sought in the King of France, Philip the Fair. Before 1307, there is no indication that the king or his advisors thought the order corrupt, and the king continued to use them for financial transactions. Medieval monasteries often served as places to deposit money, and the Templars, with their international network of fortified monasteries, were ideal providers of financial services. Nor is there evidence that the Templars were seen as any threat to the crown. So, either the King acted cynically or he was persuaded that the Templars were corrupt by advisors (William of Nogaret is a prime candidate) who wanted to get their hands on the Templar possessions. In the end, they were thwarted, because the pope assigned their holdings to the Hospitallers. Dante, a contemporary, says that Philip the Fair was the new Pilate who "flaunts his plundering sails into the Temple (Purg. 20.91-93). The royal officials struck quickly in France, on October 12-13, 1307. and were able to extract under torture confessions from most of the Templars. Admitting to heresy and immorality. Clement V, trying to regain the initiative, ordered the arrest and investigation of the Templars in other countries as well. The leaders of the Templars soon revoked their confessions, and the Pope stopped the French government from hurrying the process through. Finally, after the decree of 1312, some Templars were pensioned, some joined other religious orders, and the relapsed and impenitent were imprisoned or executed. Jacques de Molay and three others were burned to death in 1314; de Molay maintained his innocence to the end, saying his earlier confession was his only grave sin. Alan Forey, The Fall of the Templars in the Crown of Aragon (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2001) [Review by Nikolas Jaspert, Speculum) shows that the end of Templars there was less brutal. No Templars in Aragon admitted serious misdeeds. King Jaume II had to besiege a number of Templar castles, at great cost. After he order was suppressed their estates were turned over to the Hospitallers to a new knightly order (Montesa). Some Templars were pensioned in their former properties, fewer joined other religious orders.

E. Gnosticism
1. Gnosticism was an important religious movement in the second and third centuries AD. Gnosticism was a religion of redemption that existed in pagan, Jewish and Christian forms and was strongest in mid-2nd-century. Gnosticism was very pessimistic about world and matter, which were attributed to inferior divine being as result of heavenly catastrophe. Sparks of Light became embedded in matter. Liberation comes through higher knowledge (gnosis) about how one can return to ones heavenly home by going past spirits who aims to bar the way. There were many Gnostic groups. Their theologies were peopled with many heavenly beings. One of the less fanciful forms of Gnosticism was that of Valentinus. This version denied that Christ had a human body. The Valentinians interpreted the Bible in symbolic terms, gave a mythical interpretation of Wisdom (Sophia), who fell in love with the supreme Aeon. That Aeon was one of thirty celestial beings constituting the Fullness (pleroma) of the evolving divine being. Their marriage precipitated the Fall, which led to the existence of spirit, psychic stuff and

matter. These three sorts of entity define three types of human beings. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 185 AD, Five Books against the Heresies) was a notable Catholic Christian opponent of Gnosticism. John C. Dwyer, Church History: Twenty Centuries of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist, 1985; rev. ed. 1998 pp. 75-76, gives a helpful list of five characteristics of Gnosticism: (i) God is remote from world; (ii) God contacts the world through intermediates; (iii) the souls of people are sparks of divine being and (iv) need to be liberated from matter (v) by means of hidden, secret knowledge. Scholars are not in agreement about the origins of Gnosticism. In 1945 a large library of documents in Coptic, dating from the mid-fourth century was discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt. Prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi documents in 1945, some (e.g. Cerfaux) felt that Gnosticism was a pagan religious way of thinking which later infiltrated Christianity in the second century; others (e.g. R. Bultmann) thought Gnosticism was a factor already when the NT was written. Gnosticism was one crystallization of various religious movements in the early Roman Empire, a time when the traditional Greco-Roman religions were losing their hold on peoples allegiance, who, finding themselves at sea in a very large, impersonal empire, sought salvation and meaning. Gnosticism saw liberation through freedom from matter and secret knowledge, and contrasted with orthodox Christianity whose central belief was the Incarnation (John 1: The Word who was God became flesh), in the Son of God, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, in the flesh and in history. Pheme Perkins of Boston College [Gnosticism and the New Testament (Fortress, 1993)] thinks that Gnosticism arose on the fringes of Judaism. George W. MacRae, SJ, [Studies in the New Testament and Gnosticism. Liturgical Press, 1987), pp. 165ff.], who at the time of his death in 1985 was a professor at Harvard, thinks the Nag Hammadi documents indicate that Gnosticism arose at least as early as Christianity and independently of it, and that Christianized Gnosticism or Gnosticized Christianity is derivative and later than either Christianity or (non-Christian) Gnosticism. Like Perkins, he thinks Gnosticism arose on the fringes of Judaism, probably among the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria. Gnosticism was a very diverse movement (as indeed was Christianity), and not all the Nag Hammadi documents are Gnostic. One of the more important Gnosticizing Christian documents in the collection is The Gospel of Thomas, a collection of sayings which the majority of scholars think is independent of the New Testament writings and which some think may actually contain sayings that go back to Jesus. Basing himself on the New Testament and on Christian writings before Irenaeus (last third of the 2 nd century) McRae gives three reasons why he think the early Christians rejected Gnosticism: (1) their non-conformist, antinomian ethical behavior, which distinguished sharply between inner conviction and outer behavior and tended to regard the later as irrelevant; (2) they believed that a lesser God created this world; (3) the Gnostics regarded matter as evil, and so undercut the central Christian conviction that the Word became flesh (John 1), that Jesus was in the flesh (1 John 4.2). During the last 20 years, as the Nag Hammadi documents have been more studied, it has become something of a fashion to object to the early Christian churchs efforts to distinguish itself from Gnosticism and to reject the Gnostic writings (cf. writings of Elaine Pagels). However, any group (the USA, the UN, the ACLU, AAUP,

The Jesus Seminar) if it is to last, needs some sort of self-definition: we stand for this; we hold these truths, and so forth. Christianity was no different. The writing of the New Testament documents, and the decisions about which ones were to be read in church and considered authoritative (decisions which for the most part are unknown to us), and the formulation of a canon or official collection of biblical books were an important part of this self-definition. Of course, such definition involves the invocation and use of authority, but neither is inherently evil. (Violence and persecution are evil, and if Christians mistreated GnosticsIm not familiar with the evidence--then that was bad.). Those who want to pursue the question of Christian self-definition might consult Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why It Matters (Doubleday, 2003). The questions regarding the creed and the canon ultimately concern ones faith or disbelief regarding the activity of the Holy Sprit in the church. The Gnostics, for their part, emphasized their secret knowledge (gnosis) derived from various heavenly mediators or secret texts as a clear alternative to the faith (pistis) of the orthodox or catholic Christians. Modern champions of knowledge who reject faith feel some sympathy with the Gnostics, though surely to take the teachings of the Gnostic writings seriously is some sort of act of faith. 2. The Gospel of Mary. Introduction and Commentary. The Da Vinci Code mentions two Gnostic documents: Lets just look at one, The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene, The Hag Hammadi Library, ed. James M. Robinson, rev. ed. (HarperSanFrancisco, 1990), pp. 524-527. The text is in the packet. Those involved in preparing the translation of this particular text were George McRae, SJ, and R. McL. Wilson, translators, Karen King (a feminist religious scholar, who wrote the introduction), and Douglas M. Parrot (who edited their work). According to King (pp. 523-4) what survives of the text can be divided into two parts. The first section (7.1-9,24) describes a dialogue between the Risen Savior and the disciples regarding matter and sin. Relying on an exegesis of Romans 7, the Savior argues than sin is not a moral, but a cosmological one; sin is due to the improper mixing of matter and spirit. The Savior warns the disciples not to be led astray and commissions them to go preach the gospel. The disciples are grieved and Mary confronts them. The second section (10.1-23; 15.1-19.2) is a description by Mary of a special revelation given her by the Savior. At Peters request, she tells them these hidden things (the beginning and end of her revelation are all that survive). The revelation was a dialogue: The Savior says the soul sees through the mind which is between soul and spirit.Then, the Savior describes the rise of the soul through the four powers (probably the four elements). The enlightened soul, free of their bonds, rises past them, overpowering them with her gnosis, and attains eternal rest. Then Andrew and Peter challenge her, saying (1) these teachings are strange; (2) Jesus wouldnt have told them to a woman and kept from the male disciples. Levi admonishes Peter, saying that Jesus loved Mary more than the other disciples, and urges them to go forth to preach. In other Christian Gnostic documents there are also conflicts between Mary and Peter. Peter and Andrew represent orthodox positions that deny the validity of esoteric revelation and the authority of women to teach. This text may be conflated from two pre-existing pieces .

Perkins (Gnosticism, 181-184): Scholars suggest that both the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary were intended to displace the public revelation contained in the Christian canon. Both distinguish the public teaching of the disciples from the private revelation given to those whom the Lord loves. The first section deliberately echoes the departing promises of the risen Lord in Luke and John and the prophesies of Mark 13. The disciples, though, are too afraid. Mary summons them to the task: the Lord has made us male, that is enabled us to overcome the divided soul and the weak (feminine) dimensions of the soul, In the second part the love which the Savior has for Mary shows the union of spirit and mind that is necessary for salvation. The final section is a visionary account of the souls purification from passion, given privately to Mary by Jesus. Marys enlightenment contrasts with the fear of the disciples. The passage echoes the Lucan statement that the kingdom is within (Lk 17.21-22) and Lukes phrase, heavenly treasure (Lk 12.34). Peter and Andrew represent the orthodox position that there can be no private revelation which differs from Jesus pubic testimony. Levi says they should become men, that is, undergo the spiritual transformation (gnosis) that Mary has achieved. Mary, however, is not commissioned to preach. The references to Jesus teaching in the orthodox gospels show that it was not easy to attribute to Jesus sayings that werent found in them. But the Gnostic authors say that the meaning of those saying can be known only by those who receive special enlightenment. How one treats the conflict between Peer and Mary in Gospel of Mary depends on whether one presumes that its author has a hostile Christian majority in view or one assumes that Gospel of Mary has formulated a response to the kind of objection raised in Irenaeus about esoteric revelation and the universality of apostolic preaching. In the former case, Peter is the embodiment of orthodox dogmatism. In the latter case, his eventual conversion provides a foundation for a Gnostic claim to the inner meaning to Christian teaching. Regarding the role of women in Gnosticism, she notes: The essentially private structure of Gnostic sect as well as their need for influential patrons may have provided opportunities for women as teachers and leaders that the more public and formally ordered orthodox churches denied them But the available evidence does not indicate whether the figure of Wisdom in Gnostic myth and ritual played a significant role in determining the position of women (p.175). One may note that neither King nor Perkins sees any suggestion in the Gospel of Mary that Jesus married.

3. Text of the Gospel of Mary, from The Nag Hammadi Library, pp. 524-527. Note: There is a book of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail sort by Jean-Yves LeLoup, The Gospel of Mary Magdalen (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2002) which appears immensely scholarly, but it has the same general tenor as Baigent and Leigh and uses the same sort of argument by innuendo that they do.

Appendix I: Da Vincis Last Supper: Leonardos Real Intention by Elizabeth Lev (From Zenit News Service, February 2004)
Truth be told, Leonardo da Vinci is not one of the 10 historical figures I would most like to invite to dinner. Perhaps the historical rivalry between Leonardo and Michelangelo was so fierce that one starts to take sides. Nonetheless, after 46 weeks of "The Da Vinci Code" ensconced at the top of the best-seller lists, I felt obliged to come to the defense of his work. A little background for the remnant still unsullied by the reading of this book: Author Dan Brown makes the incredible claim that the individual seated at the right hand of Jesus in da Vinci's "Last Supper" is not, as commonly understood, the Apostle John, but rather Mary Magdalene, who would be Jesus' wife. Although the work presents itself as fiction, it is written in such a way as to cause doubt. I have heard countless Rome visitors make comments like the following: "I know it is fiction, of course, but it brings up some interesting questions ..." The acute nature of the problem set in when my American students, instead of asking where the outlet stores in Florence were, began inquiring where they could see "The Last Supper." Then one day in the classroom, the bomb was dropped: "Professor Lev, isn't that Mary Magdalene sitting next to Jesus?" Now, there is a positive side to all this. The students are taking an interest in Leonardo and many are learning the names of the apostles for the first time. Unfortunately, the author stimulating these first impressions has no idea what he is talking about. The major religious and historical gaffes aside, a word must be said about Leonardo's "Last Supper." Amid Leonardo's copious writings, very little reveals his personal thoughts and feelings. Artists generally do not look to be remembered through their diaries, notebooks or doodling pads. One thing for sure, nothing in Leonardo's writings suggests that the person next to Jesus is anyone other than John. Brown capitalizes on Leonardo's soft-featured, beardless depiction of John to offer his fantastic claim that we are dealing with a woman. Of course, if St. John were really Mary Magdalene, we may well ask which of the apostles excused himself at the critical moment. But the real problem stems from our lack of familiarity with "types." In his Treatise on Painting, Leonardo explains that each figure should be painted according to his station and age. A wise man has certain characteristics, an old woman others, and children others still. A classic type, common to many Renaissance paintings, is the "student." A favored follower, a protg or disciple, is always portrayed as very youthful, long-haired and

clean-shaven; the idea being that he has not yet matured to the point where he must find his own way. Throughout the Renaissance, artists portray St. John in this fashion. He is the "disciple Jesus loved" -- the only one who will be at the foot of the cross. He is the ideal student. To the Renaissance artist the only way to show St. John was as a beardless youth, with none of the hard, determined physiognomy of men. The "Last Supper" of Ghirlandaio and Andrea del Castagno show a similarly soft, young John. Leonardo's innovation lies not in his depiction of John, but rather in the dynamism of his composition. Unlike his predecessors who showed a group of men talking around a table, Leonardo selects the most dramatic moment of the meal. Jesus has just made the announcement, "One of you will betray me." The composition accordingly registers the shockwave that emanates from this statement. Instead of the typical 11 apostles on the far side of the table and Judas on the side closest the viewer, Leonardo places them all on the same side, so there is a ripple effect from the isolated Christ framed by a window out toward the apostles who are grouped into threes. The most important set comprises Peter, John and Judas. Impetuous Peter thrusts himself toward John, asking him to inquire of Jesus who the betrayer will be; in doing so, he pushes Judas outward toward the viewer. The original image (it has been heavily repainted) had Judas' head turned directly toward John, whose serene countenance manifests the assurance of his own innocence. The low forehead, and dark, brutish features of the traitor Judas stand in sharp contrast to the luminous delicacy of John. The viewer is forced to think about where he or she stands (or sits) in this picture. Are we calm in certainty of fidelity, do we protest too much, or do we hide in the shadows? Elizabeth Lev teaches art history at Duquesne University's Rome campus. In the article from the Chicago Tribune cited below, Jack Wasserman, retired art history professor at Temple Unversity, says Just about everything [Dan Brown] says about Leonardo da Vinci is wrong.

Appendix II: Grail Bibliography

University of Rochester. Camelot Project. http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/grlmenu.htm The Holy Grail The Holy Grail is generally considered to be the cup from which Christ drank at the Last Supper and the one used by Joseph of Arimathea to catch his blood as he hung on the cross. This significance, however, was introduced into the Arthurian legends by Robert

de Boron in his verse romance Joseph d'Arimathie (sometimes also called Le Roman de l'Estoire dou Graal), which was probably written in the last decade of the twelfth century or the first couple of years of the thirteenth. In earlier sources and in some later ones, the grail is something very different. The term "grail" comes from the Latin gradale, which meant a dish brought to the table during various stages (Latin "gradus") or courses of a meal. In Chrtien and other early writers, such a plate is intended by the term "grail." Chrtien, for example, speaks of "un graal," a grail or platter and thus not a unique item. Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival presents the grail as a stone which provides sustenance and prevents anyone who beholds it from dying within the week. In medieval romance, the grail was said to have been brought to Glastonbury in Britain by Joseph of Arimathea and his followers. In the time of Arthur, the quest for the Grail was the highest spiritual pursuit. For Chrtien, author of Perceval and his continuators (four works take up the task of completing the work that Chrtien left unfinished, two of which are anonymous, one is by Mannesier, and a fourth is by Gerbert de Montreuil), Perceval is the knight who must achieve the quest for the Grail. For other French authors, as for Malory, Galahad is the chief Grail knight, though others (Perceval and Bors in the Morte d'Arthur) do achieve the quest. Tennyson is perhaps the author who has the greatest influence on the conception of the Grail quest for the modern English-speaking world through his Idylls and his short poem "Sir Galahad". However, James Russell Lowell's "The Vision of Sir Launfal", one of the most popular of nineteenth-century American poems gave to generations a democratized notion of the Grail quest as something achievable by anyone who is truly charitable. The notion that the Grail story originated in fertility myths was popularized by Jessie Weston in her book From Ritual to Romance, which was used by T. S. Eliot in the writing of The Waste Land. Eliot's poem, in turn, influenced many of the important novelists of his and succeeding generations, including Hemingway and Fitzgerald. TEXTS: Adams, Oscar Fay (1855-1919), "The Return from the Quest" (1886) Adams, Oscar Fay (1855-1919), "The Vision of Sir Lamoracke" (1886) Alford, Henry (1810-1871), "The Ballad of Glastonbury" (1853) Cawein, Madison J. (1865-1914), "Waste Land" (1913) Cooke, Rose Terry (1827-1892), "The New Sangreal" (1888) De Beverley (Pseudonym of George Newcomen), "The Achievement of the Sangraele and the Death of Sir Galahad" (1925) De Beverley, Thomas (Pseudonym of George Newcomen, "Sir Percival's Vision" (1925) Field, Eugene (1850-1895), "The Vision of The Holy Grail" (1905) Fowler Wright, S[ydney] (1874-1965) The Song of Arthur (Part 4: Carbonac) (from the S. Fowler Wright Website) Gareth, David (b. 1946), "Sir Mador Seeks the Grail" (1987) Hawker, Robert Stephen (1803?-1875), "The Quest of the Sangraal" (1864) The History of That Holy Disciple Joseph of Arimathea (?1770) Hylton, J. Dunbar (1837-1893), Arteloise: A Romance of King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table (1887)

Jewett, Sophie (1861-1909), "The Dwarf's Quest: A Ballad" (1905) Lowell, James Russell (1819-1891), "The Vision of Sir Launfal" (1848) Machen, Arthur (1863-1947), The Great Return (1915) Morris, William (1834-1896), "The Chapel in Lyoness" (1858) Morris, William (1834-1896), "Sir Galahad, A Christmas Mystery" (1858) Payne, John (1842-1916). "The Romaunt of Sir Floris" (1870) Rhys, Ernest (1859-1946), "The City of Sarras" (1905) Rhys, Ernest (1859-1946), "The Quest of the Grail: On the Eve" (1905) Rhys, Ernest (1859-1946), "Sir Launcelot and the Sancgreal" (1905) Rhys, Ernest (1859-1946), "Timor Mortis" (1905) Rossetti, Dante Gabriel (1828-1882), "God's Graal" (written 1858; published 1911) "The Sancgreal" (from Six Ballads about King Arthur) (1881) Tennyson, Alfred, Lord (1809-1892), "The Holy Grail" from The Idylls of the King Trask, Katrina (1853-1922), "Kathanal" (1892) Tennyson, Alfred Lord (1809-1892), "Sir Galahad" (1834) Underhill, Evelyn (1875-1941), The Column of Dust (1909) Weston, Jessie (1850-1928), "Knights of King Arthur's Court" (1896) Young, Ella (1867-1955), "The San-Grail" (1920) BIBLIOGRAPHY Jung, Emma and Marie-Louise von Franz. The Grail Legend. Trans. Andrea Dykes. 2d ed.; Boston: Sigo Press, 1986. (Originally published in 1960 as Die Graalslegend in psychologischer Sicht.) Loomis, Roger Sherman. The Grail: From Celtic Myth to Christian Symbol. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. Owen, D. D. R. The Evolution of the Grail Legend. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1968. Waite, Arthur Edward. The Holy Grail: The Galahad Quest in the Arthurian Literature. New Hyde Park, NY: University Books, 1961. Weston, Jessie L. The Quest of the Holy Grail. 1913; rpt. New York: Haskell House, 1965.

Appendix III: Some Further Bibliography from Popular Magazines and Newspapers
The Lost Gospels, Time, December 22, 2003. The Da Vinci Code Unscrambled, by Parick Reardon, Chicago Tribune, February 5, 2004. Women of the Bible. Newsweek, Decemeber 8, 2003. The Jesus Code, US News Dec 22, 2003.

Appendix IV; Article from Knight Ridder News Service, Twin Falls Times-News