Having no great ove for Tom Hanks, and really shuddering at the thought of watching him play an even quasi-romantic role, I was very pleased to be spared any sort of out-and-out "romance". But... I did have a continual "whu?" thought running through my head all during the film. In sum, if:
1. the Priory was keeping Mary Magdalene's sarcophagus hidden
and
2. finding the sarcophagus/keeping it hidden would allow for some kind of DNA testing to prove the lineage of the descendents
then...
3. How would any of this prove that they were also the descendants of Christ? I mean, assuming you could "prove" that Mary was indeed Magdalene and not some random other person in a stone coffin, then you (might!) could prove that some living person was related to her based on DNA evidence. But the fact that she had a lineage doesn't prove the other half of it was Christ.
I was really very puzzled by this problem of logic-gap, both in the book and in the movie.
no subject
Having no great ove for Tom Hanks, and really shuddering at the thought of watching him play an even quasi-romantic role, I was very pleased to be spared any sort of out-and-out "romance". But... I did have a continual "whu?" thought running through my head all during the film. In sum, if:
1. the Priory was keeping Mary Magdalene's sarcophagus hidden
and
2. finding the sarcophagus/keeping it hidden would allow for some kind of DNA testing to prove the lineage of the descendents
then...
3. How would any of this prove that they were also the descendants of Christ? I mean, assuming you could "prove" that Mary was indeed Magdalene and not some random other person in a stone coffin, then you (might!) could prove that some living person was related to her based on DNA evidence. But the fact that she had a lineage doesn't prove the other half of it was Christ.
I was really very puzzled by this problem of logic-gap, both in the book and in the movie.