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

Entry: The true Holy Grail - A3908540
Author: TheSystem - U1494533

The Holy Grail that the Da Vinci Code claims exists really doesn't and here's the proof.

I don't believe a word of the claims in the Da Vinci Code either, but I don't think you can disprove them by shouting about it. I really don't think is good enough to become part of the Edited Guide. Perhaps if you gathered together some more evidence that Plantard is not descended from Merovingian kings, it would be more convincing.

Well thats it updated with more on the priory and plantard

This is definitely an intriguing topic for a Guide entry. I think that sometimes you're approaching your subject matter from the wrong direction, or too much of one direction - one thing the guidelines ask for is balance, so focus on presenting both sides of the debate more than 'disproving' all grail claims.

I think your title is misleading, as you never actually introduce a 'true' holy grail... instead you try to demonstrate why each is false.

Be careful about labeling the grail legends 'first' 'second' and 'third': Not only have there been far more than two legends before Brown's book, you don't actually introduce them in that order within your article, which is confusing. I had a hard time connecting each theory to its story. And while you're making references to modern grail stories, why not include Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? 'The cup of a carpenter' and all that.

You mention looking at where the grail legend first appeared... but where 'did' it first appear? I never got that. Certainly not with Monty Python.

The thing that really gets me is that you use all of one point to deal with the Da Vinci Code grail. While your information on the Priory of Sion is revealing, falsehood in the Priory by itself gives us very little food for thought in deciding whether the grail exists (even if you've read the book, and I wouldn't assume your reader has). Talk about any other theories where Jesus is married, the strictly Biblical viewpoint, find out if there are any families today who actually claim to be descendants of Jesus.

'The one true thing is there is no bloodline and no priory.' - Now wait... there 'was' a priory of sion, just not the one Brown depicted, right? To quote 'The Giver', use your 'precision of language'!

Cite and/or link to your sources!

'Alot' is not a word. Make it two words, or say 'many'.

There we go. Changed some of the layout and added a bit more.

Hey, I like what you've added. Big improvement on the origins and various forms of the grail legend.

Your section on the Priory of Sion has a huge paragraph. Let's break it down. I would suggest

-The bloodline theory, what it is and where it came from
-the Da Vinci code, Brown's version of the Priory of Sion and its role
-Da Vinci himself, 'The last supper' theory as presented in Brown's book , and the coverup including the Gnostic gospels.
-The true Priory (the medieval one, if you have much info on them)
-Plantard's false priory

I think this will make it really obvious what areas may need more clarification, like the fact that the bloodline that's being protected is the Merovingian line (in Brown's book at least, I don't know if this is true for 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' (who wrote that, by the way?).

You hit pretty hard on the idea of the grail as a quest or 'knowledge and faith' at the very end. Is there much history to this idea? If so, maybe you could put a section about it up with the other early grail theories.

As you write - be wary of 2nd person. This is a very factual article, so it should be strictly a 3rd person voice.

Nitpicky things:
You still have an 'alot' in the first paragraph.
In the very last paragraph:
Take out 'well' and start with 'The existence of a grail...'
existance - existence
incased - encased
pocession - posession
infact - in fact
since middle ages - since the middle ages
not the object but quest - not the object but the quest

I've added more including a section on Holy Blood Holy Grail.

>>"In the book there is a translation of Holy Grail as Royal Blood. This came from the theory that term Holy Grail actually comes form the term San Greal which means Kingly Blood. This part is true it does mean Royal Blood"

This needs a little expansion. It's not "San Greal" that means "Holy Blood" but "Sang Real". You need to move a letter.

But beware trusting words, their translations and their spellings from past centuries. Remember that Shakespeare never signed his name with the same spelling twice (in those signatures that survive).

For instance, there is a piece of music from the early 16th century called "Ohne Fels" in German. That means "Without a Rock". Strangely strange. Only after playing that piece for decades (in my renaissance band) did I come across the French name for it: "San Roche". This could indeed mean "Without a Rock" but it is also simply a saint's name: St Roch (born Montpellier ~1295, died 1327).

The one devastating disproof of all the "Descendants of Christ" theories is, for me, this: that cherishing such a posterity would be diametrically opposed to what Jesus stood for. As he said in the wilderness, God could raise children to Abraham from the stones; genetic parentage has no inherent value.

In one story, the Grail, Graal or Grasal was a stone that had fallen from heaven.

A meteorite?

Meteorite? How could you say that? Its obvious that it is the Emerald that fell from the crown of Lucifer when He was cast down from Heaven for leading a revolt against God.

I've oftened wondered, where does the story of Lucifer leading a revolt against heaven come from? It's not in the Bible. Is it in the Talmud/Torah?

Isaiah 1, vv12-15: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

This is said in the course of a diatribe against the king of Babylon, who at the time held the Jews in captivity, but was then threatened with destruction.

Vv4-5: "That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth."

(Why do I hear all that in the voice of Ian Paisley? Isa 13, v11: "And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.")

Like most of the Old Testament, the cosmic myths are set in solid earthly politics.

The handy side notes in my Old Testament give an alternative translation for "O Lucifer": "O day star".

If that means the morning star, then it refers to Venus (which is also the evening star). Then the passage makes poetic sense; the morning star is the brightest thing in the sky, above all the 'fixed' stars, until it is supplanted (and utterly obliterated) by the greatly superior sun.

Again, huge improvement! Your section on 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' is good. Personal taste: I would include the authors in the paragraph about the book. I also think the end of the paragraph (last two sentences) are heavily judgemental for a guide entry - you either need to spend time supporting this statement or, better, include a quote from a published historian concerning the book. (and cite!)

Your organization now makes this article much easier to read.

I would move the THE PRIORY OF SION header to immediately after the 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' paragraph, and maybe add a THE BLOODLINE THEORY header where the other one is now.

In what is currently paragraph 5 of PRIORY OF SION, you write 'The 4 in the Bible were allegedly included by Constantine because they showed Christ as Divine and not as a man as the other Gospels are supposed to have shown.' It's unclear in this sentence what is fact and what is alleged. I would make it
'The four in the Bible were selected for inclusion by Constantine. He allegedly chose them specifically because they depicted Christ as divine rather than as a man.'

Personal taste again: I think it would be better organization if you put the section on the 'knowlege and faith' theory up top with the other less-discussed theories.

Oop, another run-together word that pops up frequently: 'infact'. When this is used, it should, in fact, be two words with a comma before and after the phrase. I would use it sparingly though... usually it can be cut from a sentence and the idea will remain intact.

I still think your title is a misnomer. I would say something about 'Grail legends' but in this respect, your article is not balanced, in feel or statistically.

You mention about four grail theories in your article. Your assertion that only the bloodline theory can be disproven is a bit dogmatic.

I also took a character count and approximately half of your article deals with the bloodline theory. This isn't unacceptable, it just needs to be sold well. What if your title was something like 'the use and abuse of the Holy Grail' or 'the dangers of re-interpreting middle-european legend'?

In some ways, I think the evidence against Brown's book has the potential to be fleshed out more (see previous comments) but to do that you might need to extract it and submit it as a seperate article... which would be fine. Then it could get a passing mention in this one and you could focus more on the history of grail legends here, and Brown's book there.

Either way, I can definitely see this material on its way to the edited guide... after a little balance work, a little organization work, and a lot of standard editing (you know, stuff sub-eds are good at, but wish they didn't have to be.)

There we go. Made a few tweaks and attemped to balance things a little in the conclusion. Its looking like all the legends are false. I believe that the Grail is knowledge and faith. Can't see it being anything else.

All of this is fascinating, but it does still leave the subject of the title.

Perhaps the 'Truths' of the Holy Grail would be more apt.

The thimble is the hunt?

Interesting stuff. I haven't read 'The Da Vinci Code', but the Grail story is a fascinating one, if only because of the amount of controversy it still generates. Another good read for anyone after information is Umberto Eco's novel 'Foucault's Pendulum', which contains a whole other raft of conspiracy theories and shady characters, including a surprising number of Templars, who apprently aren't as extinct as everyone reckons. Or at least, not according to Eco.

The only thing I will say is that your grammar and punctuation are a bit wayward. You sometimes miss out things like apostrophes and try and construct sentences as if you were saying them instead of writing them. I don't know how these things are dealt with here, or if they indeed matter, but it caught my eye.

Apostrophes:

Contractions.
He is = He's
What is the time? = What's the time?
Do not = Don't
etc.

Possessives.
Something belonging to Steve = Steve's
2004 Premiership title = Last year's Premiership title

but NOT

Something belonging to it = It's

This is only used on the contraction of 'It is'. Something belonging to it is written 'its', eg. "The team is down on its luck".

Hope that helps, and as I'm quite new here, I'm enjoying watching Peer Review in action.

Awesome! I think all you really have left is some detail work (grammar, spelling, clarity). I've included a few things to fix below, I'm sure the community will help with the rest.

Note that at this stage, it might help to put temporary headings (or even paragraph numbers) in for the sake of editing. They can always be removed later.


My one content issue is in Paragraph 8:
'As christian teaching tells us the tomb was empty on Easter Sunday and the whole body of Christ rose from the dead this cannot be true.'
Although I agree with you, this argument won't apply to non-Christians... that's 2/3 of the world's population. Either find a better argument or take this sentence out altogether - you could still leave in the bit about how some people think this myth was started to damage Christianity.


--Detail Work--
Paragraph 6:
'this is were ' -> 'this is where'

Paragraph 8:
'that although the it is meant' -> 'that although it is meant'
'but noone can' -> 'but no one can'
'So what about the newest Theory?' -> Move this to the beginning of the next paragraph.

Paragraph 10:
'Altho they were' -> 'Although they were'
'known as the Priory of Sion' -> Was the priory in Holy blood, holy grail? If not, this is too early .
I'd still like you to find a quote or something for this point.

Paragraph 16:
'term Sang Real comes from' -> I think this also needs to be changed to San Greal.

Nice work!