h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I saw an investigation of Da Vinci Code by a skeptical researcher for National Geographic Channel. What was striking to me was that the interviewer would ask Dan Brown about his beliefs, and he's stand up for them vociferously. But when asked why he believed a particular belief, he spluttered.

Same show, same question posed to Henry Lincoln (one of the authors of Holy Blood). Time and time again, his answer was, "I don't believe anything. It's an hypothesis!" Bumped the man up a few notches in my estimation, as I got the impression when I read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" that these guys had gone hook, line, and sinker.

Regarding "The Last Supper," I don't see how anyone can look at that painting and NOT see a woman. We all know that Leonardo liked to play around with androgynous figures (Mona Lisa, anyone?), but his "John" is neither androgynous nor masculine. And there is significant reason to believe that the gospel attributed to John was, in fact, written by Mary Magdalene, then edited for content.

I think the whole "M" shape thing is pushing things too far, though. The shape isn't really all that clear. It's significant enough that a woman is seated directly to Jesus' right, and though she is leaning away from him, they seem to be joined at the hip.

"I'd never heard of those Egyptian scrolls before, had any of you?"

I've got a translation of them in my bookshelf, between my old and abused family bible and a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I can see an M in the Last Supper but whether it was put there deliberatly or not I can't say. I can't say either that I ever properly looked at The Last Supper, gave it a quick glance but never really got beyond Jesus but when Tony Robinson pointed it out in that show he did I was "Well me it is a woman", I'd never hear of the Gnostic Gospels either until then, does anyone know where they are now?

This is similar to the Face in Mars controversy. If you strongly believe that there are hidden patterns in something that match your own obsessions, you will find them if you look long enough.

That's true "Seek and ye shall find" to quote a phrase

The difference is that the painting is more believable.

I guess

From the standpoint of someone who is neutral I mean, not someone like David Icke and his Illuminati.

Talking of Illuminati have you read Angels and Demons

No I haven't...

Not being hugely up to speed - saw some of the TV programme, but have never read the book, I have a question.

Was the female disciple thing meant to be widely known at the time of the painting. If not, what are outsiders to the secret at the time meant to have made of the obviously female disciple?

Good point, I don't know.

HPB - Read it, I thought it was better than the Da Vinci Code

There was 'sect' of monks that believed Jesus and Mary Magdeline had a family and it was 'wiped out' by the church

I don't know if the Knights Templar worshipped Mary Magdeline

The Templars appeared to have a special place in their hearts for John the Baptist. As did Leonardo.

I imagine outsiders viewing his painting reacted in pretty much the same way we have done today... they failed completely to notice. When you look at a painting like this with a preconceived notion of what it conveys, then that's what you see. You have to look at it without seeing it through your prejudices. Someone simply saying, "Hey, that's a woman there," is enough to make you look again in a different way, with your mind re-opened.

I can't count the number of times I saw that painting without noticing. Or if I did notice, I put a blind spot around it, just like Christians do when they read something in their Bible that doesn't correspond to their own personal notion of the nature of God. SEP fields are powerful things.

I totally agree I never saw the female figure or the hands or the glasses, we all know what history says, 13 MEN at the last supper and the holy grail is the cup/chalise Christ shared the wine in at the Last Supper, we all know that's what it's supposed to be so that's what we all see, the mind can play funny tricks

I watched Michael Wood's BBC2 programme on King Arthur the other day, and there were some painted glass windows in a church with four figures, who were apparantely supposed to be Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the John figure was definately a woman. There's no doubt. the suggestion was that it was Mary Magdalene.

Presumably, the more common an androgynous or female John is, the less of a secret it would have been?

You'd think. I just thought I'd share that, anyway.

Not much of a religious buff, and am only reading the book because I got it as a freebie from my book club. Enjoying the read so far (bout half way through).

Have a read of Angels and Demons, that is very good, I thought it was better than the Da Vinci Code, didn't think much of Digital Fortress tho

And what about Deception Point?