🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 02:37:13 +0000 (UTC), George Cox
<george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:

>Some say is was the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper; others that it
>was used to collect his blood at the crucifixion.
>
>Which?

Neither - just a romantic legend.

Check out <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06719a.htm>

Quote:
 It would seem that a legend so distinctively Christian would find
favour with the Church. Yet this was not the case. Excepting
Helinandus, clerical writers do not mention the Grail, and the Church
ignored the legend completely. After all, the legend contained the
elements of which the Church could not approve. Its sources are in
apocryphal, not in canonical, scripture, and the claims of sanctity
made for the Grail were refuted by their very extravagance.
Unquote.

Richard Emblem

"God loves you and there's not a thing you can do to change that."
(Rev Tom Van Culin, Honolulu)

George Cox <george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> writes:

> Some say is was the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper; others that it
> was used to collect his blood at the crucifixion.
>
> Which?

Whichever you prefer.

  - The standard version of the legend, I think,
    says that the same cup was used for both purposes.

  - It seems to me very likely that there was a cup
    used by Jesus at the Last Supper, but that no one
    collected his blood in a cup at the crucifixion.

  - There is absolutely no reason whatever to suppose
    that any cup used for either purpose has survived,
    or that it's recognizable as such if it has.

  - If either or both had survived and could be
    identified, they'd be very interesting historically
    but I see no reason to expect them to have
    miraculous powers or anything of the kind.

Why do you ask?

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 02:37:13 +0000 (UTC), George Cox
<george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:

> Some say is was the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper; others that it
> was used to collect his blood at the crucifixion.
>
> Which?

Read "The Da Vinci Code" :-)
--
Mitch

Gareth McCaughan offered:

> Why do you ask?

Da Vinci Code (and variations on a theme), I expect.

Allegation is that it's to do with the bloodline of Jesus via Mary
Magdalene.



--
For emails, put "Jet" in the subject line. Hotmail filters out and
deletes other messages.

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 02:37:13 +0000 (UTC), George Cox
<george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:

>Some say is was the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper; others that it
>was used to collect his blood at the crucifixion.
>
>Which?
>
Some say it is a metaphor for the child of Christ carried by Mary
Magdalene and brought to Europe after the crucifixion.

Max

Jet Wood wrote:

[I said, to George Cox:]
>> Why do you ask?

[Jet:]
> Da Vinci Code (and variations on a theme), I expect.
>
> Allegation is that it's to do with the bloodline of Jesus via Mary
> Magdalene.

Oh, bletch. :-)

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
> Why do you ask?

Because I had heard three accounts: last supper, blood collection, both.

Jet Wood wrote:
>
> Gareth McCaughan offered:
>
> > Why do you ask?
>
> Da Vinci Code

What's that?

Mitch B wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 02:37:13 +0000 (UTC), George Cox
> <george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Some say is was the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper; others that it
> > was used to collect his blood at the crucifixion.
> >
> > Which?
>
> Read "The Da Vinci Code" :-)

Is it a serious read?

Max Desorgher wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 02:37:13 +0000 (UTC), George Cox
> <george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Some say is was the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper; others that it
> >was used to collect his blood at the crucifixion.
> >
> >Which?
> >
> Some say it is a metaphor for the child of Christ carried by Mary
> Magdalene and brought to Europe after the crucifixion.

Was the child of Christ carried by Mary Magdalene and brought to Europe
after the crucifixion?

In message <87ekh0um40.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>
          Gareth McCaughan <gareth.mccaughan@pobox.com> wrote:

> > Da Vinci Code (and variations on a theme), I expect.
> > Allegation is that it's to do with the bloodline of Jesus via Mary
> > Magdalene.
 
> Oh, bletch. :-)

Quite. I read it on a friend's recommendation. The first 80% is good (in the
sense of well-written and suspenseful) but the ending is incredibly weak. It
really should not have been published - the guy should have been told to go
away and rewrite it with a better one. 

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|    Australia's premiere archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

In message <41dcbf4a.141304785@mid.ydns.org>
          "Mitch B" <mitch_niet@mid.ydns.org> wrote:

> Read "The Da Vinci Code" :-)

Don't bother.

A chap is mortally wounded in the Louvre where, because of the alarms and
anti-theft devices no one can get at him. He lays himself out like the
Petruvian Man made famous by da Vinci (the naked chap in a circle, arms
extended). His daughter realises that he intended a code and helps an
American scholar, the chief suspect, to escape. Together they find out that
the father is the Grand Master of the Templars or Rosicrucians or something
similar, and has been hiding a secret all his life, a secret which someone
else has cracked and is now trying to get the treasure. By means of
coincidences and apparent ratiocination they solve the code with ease, fall
in and out of the clutches of villains, finally shake them off or kill them,
and then repair to Roslaire Chapel near Edinburgh where the amazing secret,
protected by all these codes and bloodshed, turns out to be that the
daughter has a brother - and not even a novice Grand Panjandrum, just a
brother.

Bah.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|    Australia's premiere archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 19:23:49 +0000 (UTC), George Cox
<george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:

> Mitch B wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 02:37:13 +0000 (UTC), George Cox
>> <george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Some say is was the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper; others that it
>>> was used to collect his blood at the crucifixion.
>>>
>>> Which?
>>
>> Read "The Da Vinci Code" :-)
>
> Is it a serious read?

What do you mean by 'serious' ?

PS  Google is your friend.
--
Mitch

Mitch B wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 19:23:49 +0000 (UTC), George Cox
> <george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Mitch B wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 02:37:13 +0000 (UTC), George Cox
> >> <george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Some say is was the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper; others that it
> >>> was used to collect his blood at the crucifixion.
> >>>
> >>> Which?
> >>
> >> Read "The Da Vinci Code" :-)
> >
> > Is it a serious read?
>
> What do you mean by 'serious' ?
>
> PS  Google is your friend.

I see that it is described as being a thriller.  Trash I would guess.

Jet Wood wrote:
>
> Gareth McCaughan offered:
>
> > Why do you ask?
>
> Da Vinci Code (and variations on a theme), I expect.
>
> Allegation is that it's to do with the bloodline of Jesus via Mary
> Magdalene.

Did Jesus and Mary Magdalene have children?

George Cox wrote:

> Was the child of Christ carried by Mary Magdalene and brought to Europe
> after the crucifixion?

So far as I am aware, there is absolutely no reason whatever
to think that any such thing happened.

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 19:25:48 +0000 (UTC), George Cox
<george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:

>Max Desorgher wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 02:37:13 +0000 (UTC), George Cox
>> <george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Some say is was the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper; others that it
>> >was used to collect his blood at the crucifixion.
>> >
>> >Which?
>> >
>> Some say it is a metaphor for the child of Christ carried by Mary
>> Magdalene and brought to Europe after the crucifixion.
>
>Was the child of Christ carried by Mary Magdalene and brought to Europe
>after the crucifixion?

So they say.

George Cox offered:

> Jet Wood wrote:
>>
>> Gareth McCaughan offered:
>>
>>> Why do you ask?
>>
>> Da Vinci Code
>
> What's that?

It's a novel, based on various legends, that Jesus and Mary Magdalene
had a family, that the said family was spirited away from the Holy Land,
that the Knights Templar became aware of the fact, and custodians of the
secret knowledge of the current identities of the descendants, and that
despite the fact that the Templars were forcibly suppressed 700 years
ago, they live on, guarding secrets that, if revealed would bring about
the end of everything as we know it. There have been a whole host of
related works of fiction and alleged history in recent years, things
like "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", "The Tomb of God" etc. etc. Just Google
on Templars and Grail if you want to know more.

Having recently read the dVC[1], my view is that the first 300 pages or
so are pretty reasonable, and then it goes off on a real wild goose
chase. (Spookily, though as it happens I have no particular interest in
this fantasy, I've visited practically all of the significant locations
in the book at one time or another!) Still, the whole thing is at heart
a crime novel, so I won't say too much more about it, so as not to spoil
the plot. Anyway, one can envisage the book being made into a screenplay
without too much difficulty, so expect a film soon.

[1] One of my church members asked for comments, and lent me her copy.

--
For emails, put "Jet" in the subject line. Hotmail filters out and
deletes other messages.

George Cox offered:

> Jet Wood wrote:
>>
>> Gareth McCaughan offered:
>>
>>> Why do you ask?
>>
>> Da Vinci Code (and variations on a theme), I expect.
>>
>> Allegation is that it's to do with the bloodline of Jesus via Mary
>> Magdalene.
>
> Did Jesus and Mary Magdalene have children?

There is no reputable evidence to say that Jesus was ever married. Or
that he wasn't. The gospels make no explicit statement either way (as
indeed they don't about most of the disciples).

--
For emails, put "Jet" in the subject line. Hotmail filters out and
deletes other messages.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> In message <41dcbf4a.141304785@mid.ydns.org>
>           "Mitch B" <mitch_niet@mid.ydns.org> wrote:
>
>> Read "The Da Vinci Code" :-)
>
> Don't bother.
>
> A chap is mortally wounded in the Louvre where, because of the
> alarms and anti-theft devices no one can get at him. He lays himself
> out like the Petruvian Man made famous by da Vinci (the naked chap
> in a circle, arms extended).

Reminds me of Eco's Foucault's Pendulum though it's quite a few years
since I read it! I suppose if they both deal with the templars there's
bound to be material in common. Anyone read both and like to comment
on their respective merits before I bother to reread the Eco?

Robert
--
He is our homeliest home and endless dwelling - Julian of Norwich

Robert Marshall <spam@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

> Reminds me of Eco's Foucault's Pendulum though it's quite a few years
> since I read it! I suppose if they both deal with the templars there's
> bound to be material in common. Anyone read both and like to comment
> on their respective merits before I bother to reread the Eco?

I've read the Eco but not the Brown. I thought it was rather good.
I've seen a comment from someone who's read both along the lines
of "if you were going to read TDVC, don't bother; read FP instead",
but one can't rule out intellectual snobbery in such cases :-).

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:08:46 +0000 (UTC), George Cox
<george_coxanti@spambtinternet.com.invalid> wrote:


> I see that it is described as being a thriller.  Trash I would guess.

I'm so glad to see for myself how you take so much time, care and
effort to arrive at a particular opinion. I will bear that in mind
when considering your other opinions.
--
Mitch

In message <87sm5est4c.fsf_-_@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>
          Gareth McCaughan <gareth.mccaughan@pobox.com> wrote:

> I've read the Eco but not the Brown. I thought it was rather good.
> I've seen a comment from someone who's read both along the lines
> of "if you were going to read TDVC, don't bother; read FP instead",
> but one can't rule out intellectual snobbery in such cases :-).

I seem to recall that Eco is among the bibliography the da Vinci Code chap
uses. 

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|    Australia's premiere archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

Ken Down wrote:

[I said:]
>> I've read the Eco but not the Brown. I thought it was rather good.
>> I've seen a comment from someone who's read both along the lines
>> of "if you were going to read TDVC, don't bother; read FP instead",
>> but one can't rule out intellectual snobbery in such cases :-).

[Ken:]
> I seem to recall that Eco is among the bibliography the da Vinci Code chap
> uses.

That's entirely possible, but I don't think it is helpful in
deciding the relative merits of the two books.

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>
> I've read the Eco but not the Brown. I thought it was rather good.
> I've seen a comment from someone who's read both along the lines
> of "if you were going to read TDVC, don't bother; read FP instead",
> but one can't rule out intellectual snobbery in such cases :-).
>
> --
About the 'Da Vinci Code' There's a recent and IMHO good
book by Ehrman 'Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code'.

Ehrman is a leading scholar of early Christianity and
liked the book as fiction but was somewhat disappointed
by the number of errors that could have been corrected
without undermining the plot. (For example the really
weird claims about Constantine could have been replaced
with a less impossible story about how 'mainstream'
Christianity from the late 2nd century suppressed the
original Christian message.)

Andrew Criddle

Gareth McCaughan <gareth.mccaughan@pobox.com> wrote:

>Robert Marshall <spam@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Reminds me of Eco's Foucault's Pendulum though it's quite a few years
>> since I read it! I suppose if they both deal with the templars there's
>> bound to be material in common. Anyone read both and like to comment
>> on their respective merits before I bother to reread the Eco?
>
>I've read the Eco but not the Brown. I thought it was rather good.
>I've seen a comment from someone who's read both along the lines
>of "if you were going to read TDVC, don't bother; read FP instead",
>but one can't rule out intellectual snobbery in such cases :-).

I noticed that our curate has a copy of TDVC in the loo (presumably to
read) but he hedged when I asked whether he thought it was good.

A Christian friend - the same who introduced me to Philip Pullman's
novels - is trying to persuade me to read TDVC. She says it's a great
story so long as you remember it's fiction.

Alan

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:04:28 +0000, Alan Zanker <alan@zanker.org>
wrote:

>Gareth McCaughan <gareth.mccaughan@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>Robert Marshall <spam@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Reminds me of Eco's Foucault's Pendulum though it's quite a few years
>>> since I read it! I suppose if they both deal with the templars there's
>>> bound to be material in common. Anyone read both and like to comment
>>> on their respective merits before I bother to reread the Eco?
>>
>>I've read the Eco but not the Brown. I thought it was rather good.
>>I've seen a comment from someone who's read both along the lines
>>of "if you were going to read TDVC, don't bother; read FP instead",
>>but one can't rule out intellectual snobbery in such cases :-).
>
>I noticed that our curate has a copy of TDVC in the loo (presumably to
>read) but he hedged when I asked whether he thought it was good.
>
>A Christian friend - the same who introduced me to Philip Pullman's
>novels - is trying to persuade me to read TDVC. She says it's a great
>story so long as you remember it's fiction.

I totally agree (FWIW)

Richard Emblem

"God loves you and there's not a thing you can do to change that."
(Rev Tom Van Culin, Honolulu)

Jet Wood (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<16rtxvcwaqlzl.fs8pexkouz7d.dlg@40tude.net>:

> George Cox offered:
>
>> Jet Wood wrote:
>>>
>>> Gareth McCaughan offered:
>>>
>>>> Why do you ask?
>>>
>>> Da Vinci Code (and variations on a theme), I expect.
>>>
>>> Allegation is that it's to do with the bloodline of Jesus via Mary
>>> Magdalene.
>>
>> Did Jesus and Mary Magdalene have children?
>
> There is no reputable evidence to say that Jesus was ever married. Or
> that he wasn't. The gospels make no explicit statement either way (as
> indeed they don't about most of the disciples).

Peter's wife's mother is virtually the only member of the disciples'
families that we meet, however briefly, in the gospels.

Some bizarre works of fiction have been based on the premise that the
wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11) was Jesus' *own* wedding....
--
Paul Townsend
Pair them off into threes

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

Kendall K. Down (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<9d9aa2284d.diggings@diggingsonline.com>:

> In message <87ekh0um40.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>
>           Gareth McCaughan <gareth.mccaughan@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > Da Vinci Code (and variations on a theme), I expect.
>> > Allegation is that it's to do with the bloodline of Jesus via Mary
>> > Magdalene.
>
>> Oh, bletch. :-)
>
> Quite. I read it on a friend's recommendation. The first 80% is good (in
> the sense of well-written and suspenseful) but the ending is incredibly
> weak. It really should not have been published - the guy should have been
> told to go away and rewrite it with a better one.

Actually it's the other way round.

The Grand Imperial Wizard of the Ancient Order of Knights Templar sent the
heavies round to him and threatened him with dire consequences if he did
not remove the original ending with its references to the Ultimate Secrets,
and substitute something wishy-washy in its stead.

:)

--
Paul Townsend
Pair them off into threes

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005, Prai Jei wrote:

>
> Some bizarre works of fiction have been based on the premise that
> the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11) was Jesus' *own* wedding....

Are you prepared to name them? I assume they're no good?

Robert
--
He is our homeliest home and endless dwelling - Julian of Norwich

Alan Zanker wrote:

> I noticed that our curate has a copy of TDVC in the loo (presumably to
> read) but he hedged when I asked whether he thought it was good.

I love that parenthetical remark.

Today's "Independent" has an article about TDVC. (They
have an online book club, which chooses a book to read
and discuss every week, and a regular article summarizing
the discussion.) It seems that almost everyone who
commented on the book thought that it was very bad.

Once again, it's possible that intellectual snobbery
is partly responsible.

Having mentioned intellectual snobbery a couple of times
in this thread, I should perhaps make explicit the fact
that I have no pretensions to be looking down on
intellectual snobs from a position of superiority,
and no grounds for doing so; intellectual snobbery
is certainly part of the reason why *I* haven't
read TDVC. :-)

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

Andrew Criddle wrote:

> Ehrman is a leading scholar of early Christianity and
> liked the book as fiction but was somewhat disappointed
> by the number of errors that could have been corrected
> without undermining the plot. (For example the really
> weird claims about Constantine could have been replaced
> with a less impossible story about how 'mainstream'
> Christianity from the late 2nd century suppressed the
> original Christian message.)

Well, Bart "orthodox corruption of scripture" Ehrman
*would* say that, wouldn't he? :-)

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

"Gareth McCaughan" <gareth.mccaughan@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:87k6qoloeo.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...

> Having mentioned intellectual snobbery a couple of times
> in this thread, I should perhaps make explicit the fact
> that I have no pretensions to be looking down on
> intellectual snobs from a position of superiority [...]

That's probably just as well, Gareth, otherwise you might become the first
known example of an intellectual meta-snob.

(If that's the phrase I want.)

Nicholas.
--
"Macbeth" is ... by a playwright who ought, at least on this occasion, to have
written a story, if he had the skill or patience. - JRRT, _On Fairy-Stories_
To email me, use vnicholasv@vinchbare-yv.vfsnetv.co.uk,
removing all occurrences of the letter "v".

Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> Andrew Criddle wrote:
>
> > Ehrman is a leading scholar of early Christianity and
> > liked the book as fiction but was somewhat disappointed
> > by the number of errors that could have been corrected
> > without undermining the plot. (For example the really
> > weird claims about Constantine could have been replaced
> > with a less impossible story about how 'mainstream'
> > Christianity from the late 2nd century suppressed the
> > original Christian message.)
>
> Well, Bart "orthodox corruption of scripture" Ehrman
> *would* say that, wouldn't he? :-)
>
Two Points

a/ Ehrman makes clear that he regards some of the core
ideas in DVC such as the romantic relation of Jesus and
Mary Magdalene and the claim that Christianity originally
worshipped the divine Female principle before being
corrupted by patriarchy, as historically definitely
unlikely.

However, IIUC he regards such ideas as legitimate in
serious historical fiction, whereas the claim that the
canon of the four Gospels Matthew Mark and John was
invented by Constantine and until then dozens of Gospels
were accepted as equally valid most of them treating
Jesus as merely human and in no sense divine, is simply
mistaken.

b/ 'orthodox corruption of scripture' is a (deliberately)
provocative title. The book IMO is in many ways quite
moderate.

Ehrman puts forward mostly mainstream clainms as to the
original text of various disputed NT passages (his only
really unusual claim is that the original of Hebrews 2:9
was ChWRIS ThEOU rather than ChARITI ThEOU); Ehhrman then
argues, often plausibly, that the variant reading developed
and/or spread because from the point of view of orthodox
christians the new reading expressed the Christain message
more clearly and unambiguously than the original.

Orthodox in this sense means believing that Jesus Christ
was truly God and truly man yet only one person not two.
If the NT had been preserved and transmitted by Adoptionists
or Docetists the history of textual variation would have
been substantially different.

Andrew Criddle

On 08 Jan 2005 01:08:00 +0000, Gareth McCaughan
<gareth.mccaughan@pobox.com> wrote:

> Andrew Criddle wrote:
>
>> Ehrman is a leading scholar of early Christianity and
>> liked the book as fiction but was somewhat disappointed
>> by the number of errors that could have been corrected
>> without undermining the plot. (For example the really
>> weird claims about Constantine could have been replaced
>> with a less impossible story about how 'mainstream'
>> Christianity from the late 2nd century suppressed the
>> original Christian message.)
>
> Well, Bart "orthodox corruption of scripture" Ehrman
> *would* say that, wouldn't he? :-)

Will tell you when I've had time to listen to his TTC lectures I've
got squirreled away.
--
Mitch

"Nicholas Young" <from@spam.trap> writes:

> "Gareth McCaughan" <gareth.mccaughan@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:87k6qoloeo.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
>
> > Having mentioned intellectual snobbery a couple of times
> > in this thread, I should perhaps make explicit the fact
> > that I have no pretensions to be looking down on
> > intellectual snobs from a position of superiority [...]
>
> That's probably just as well, Gareth, otherwise you might become the first
> known example of an intellectual meta-snob.
>
> (If that's the phrase I want.)

The irony had not escaped me :-). But I bet I wouldn't have
been the first. There have probably been intellectual
meta-meta-snobs, and maybe higher iterations too.

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

In message <crmmrk$qpv$3@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>
          Prai Jei <pvstownsend@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> The Grand Imperial Wizard of the Ancient Order of Knights Templar sent the
> heavies round to him and threatened him with dire consequences if he did
> not remove the original ending with its references to the Ultimate Secrets,
> and substitute something wishy-washy in its stead.

Ah! Of course. I should have thought of that myself.

I really need more practice with this conspiracy theory stuff.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|    Australia's premiere archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

Ancrew Criddle wrote:

>>> Ehrman is a leading scholar of early Christianity and
>>> liked the book as fiction but was somewhat disappointed
>>> by the number of errors that could have been corrected
>>> without undermining the plot. (For example the really
>>> weird claims about Constantine could have been replaced
>>> with a less impossible story about how 'mainstream'
>>> Christianity from the late 2nd century suppressed the
>>> original Christian message.)
>>
>> Well, Bart "orthodox corruption of scripture" Ehrman
>> *would* say that, wouldn't he? :-)
>
> Two Points
[...]

I have no quarrel with either of them. I just thought
it was amusing what example he gave of what would have
been a better conspiracy-theory plot element.

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

On 08 Jan 2005 01:06:55 +0000, Gareth McCaughan
<gareth.mccaughan@pobox.com> wrote:

>Having mentioned intellectual snobbery a couple of times
>in this thread, I should perhaps make explicit the fact
>that I have no pretensions to be looking down on
>intellectual snobs from a position of superiority,
>and no grounds for doing so; intellectual snobbery
>is certainly part of the reason why *I* haven't
>read TDVC. :-)

Thats why I didnt read it for a long time. However having read it I
would say that it is a "cracking good read" though its
pseudo-historical content is mainly rubbish.

Richard Emblem

"God loves you and there's not a thing you can do to change that."
(Rev Tom Van Culin, Honolulu)