Hmmmmmmmmmm……

I will say this however, there have always been fools, and then there has always been even greater fools, which cast do you belong to. The book, if read from either one of these levels will be seen as fabrication, fiction: They, the fools, will argue over the authenticity of the book, who the publisher was, what perfume the writer was wearing while writing the book, etc,etc.,.

However, in light of the "true" tradition of story telling, inside the story there is more often than not a core of truth; yet the fools do not seek, they do not truly ask, the greater fools even pretend to ask while all the while giving away their truest level of awareness.

Perhaps the divinci code does not historically portray in a scholarly way all the evidence, but perhaps you should ask yourself, does it need to.

How many of you have studied the evidence as objectively as say, the writers of "Holy blood, Holy Grail" or even the hundreds of other authors/researchers and documents that give very valid reasons to assume the position that there was and perhaps still is an alternate side to the whole Jesus story.

Better yet, how many of you couch critics would even bother?

If you have not yet read the book, suspend your skepticism for just one moment, try and take a look into the mind of the author, the impetus for the story, perhaps the core truth of the message will start you on a path of seeking unbiasedly, "The Truth".

The author’s father was a mathematician. A code within a code?