The Da Vinci Hoax

Having seen a viewpoint with the Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the Da Vinci Code, I was interested to see what the opponents would have said about the venture and this new question that has gripped many people. Written by Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel, the Da Vinci Hoax does not entirely refute what the Holy Blood, Holy Grail claims, but only points out errors from the bestselling novel.
Even though Dan Brown claims that the history in the novel is all factual, these writers claim that some of it was misconstrued.
My favourite argument in the book was that if the Church really intended to wipe out the truth about Mary Magdalene, why even involve her in the Bible at all? Since the people had the power, then to re-write history, they could have well chosen to eradicate a character than twist her truth, which would have resulted in lesser questions and controversy - which seemed like a valid point.
The second major argument that was interesting was that both the Da Vinci Code and the Holy Blood, Holy Grail claim that Jesus Christ was for feminism, according to the Nag Hammadi documents, but there is a passage or paragraph in those documents that claim to 'make' Mary into a man, so that she could join the others.
And finally, it was interesting to see another viewpoint that it was actually Mother Mary, who could be the holy grail, since she was the one to carry the royal blood, i.e. Jesus Christ.
The book was definitely a good read. Again, apart from some deep dives into the history, which I can't retain, most of it seemed to make a good argument against the claim of Brown and Baigent, instead of just trying to make a point for the sake of religion.