DaVinci affictionados, and many assorted secular and New-Agey types, assert vigorously that central elements portrayed in Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code are factual -- Jesus getting hitched, the Priory of Sion, etc. The same was claimed about Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which I read back in the late 1980s when it was popular -- and being passed off as "non-fiction".

Yet the very existence and central theme of the DaVinci Code lawsuit, brought by the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail against DaVinci author Dan Brown, proves the exact opposite:

Sitting motionless and largely expressionless, [Dan Brown] did not look like a man who would postulate the theory, even as fiction, that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, that the descendants of their progeny are still alive, and that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to hush it up.

At the other end of the court sat two men who claim that Brown did not postulate the theory; he stole it from them, thus infringing their copyright.

Imagine an actual historian had discovered some secret, covert, heretofore unknown German operation during World War II, and published a book detailing the evidence that said operation had occurred. Would he then sue someone for referencing the same idea in another publication?

No! He would hold that he had simply uncovered a real aspect of history, based on evidence that anyone could examine. He would be glad others agreed. Suing someone for repeating his discovery would be as absurd as claiming exclusive protection for the allegation that George Washington crossed the Deleware.

So in what situations DO people sue each other for repeating their ideas? Intellectual property cases, where someone has made up or created something novel and original, something which did not exist before.

After all, if the events postulated existed in history, then the idea certainly did not originate with Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln -- authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and they were themselves copying it from earlier evidence. Which is, in fact, their other contradictory claim: that a secret group has guarded this secret for ages. So shouldn't the imagined guardians of the conspiracy be then suing BL&L for copying it first before Dan Brown copied it again? And then on what basis would BL&L claim the idea originated with them?

You cannot both claim that the idea was created by you (which is what their lawsuit claims) and claim that it is a secret long-know by many others, who willingly disclosed it to you (which is what their book claims).

So we see the authors have refuted their own argument: their suit indicates plainly that they think of their story as an inventor thinks of his newly-created invention, not as a historian would treat objective evidence of a long-existing fact. They didn't get the idea from some secret cabal; instead they clearly believe and act as though the idea originated with them, and thus that they, and only they, should have the rights to the idea.

Heh, which is so funny, given the absolute seriousness with which their supporters take their claims regarding Jesus, Mary, and Christianity.

Here, for example, is the breathless treatment given the book by none other than the Los Angeles Times, saying the evidence in HBHG is: "Enough to seriously challenge many traditional Christian beliefs, if not alter them."

But if you want to find out where the authors really came up with the idea about Jesus's bloodline, simply read this. The evidence therein is particularly damning if you've actually read HBHG -- Baigent, for example, knew exactly how the priest Saunière made his money -- by corruptly selling masses, not through a hidden treasure or other secret support as Baigent implies in the book. Pure intellectual dishonesty.

In that article is also a quote where Baigent also admits that he has no evidence, "none whatever" (his own words) to support his speculations that Jesus had a child. His interviewer then exclaims: "So the inspiration for 'The Da Vinci Code' and a whole Canon of secret Grail Hunts is no more than a Big Guess..." (Bingo!)

But, "Big Guess" or no -- and though it may be just as unfounded and fantastic as Hitler's racial theories -- it seems to be catching on through use of the "Big Lie" technique: simply repeat an allegation enough -- even one based in an admitted fantasy -- and it will be believed. Interesting, because one of the main sources of this myth was -- can you believe it? -- Pierre Plantard, a notorious anti-Semite, pedophile, embezzler, Hitler and Vichy supporter who argued that Jews secretly started World War II.

So much better to believe men like that than those horrible Christians, eh?