Talk:The Last Templar

Plot

Synopsis needs to be rewritten. Sounds like a 1st grader wrote it.

Stub?

This article is not a stub, so whoever keeps making it one please stop. Voshvoshka 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinionated

I think that the sentence "It has been successful and received decent reviews but suffers from a terrible ending." is a litlle opinionated, but i dont know if i should remove it. Voshvoshka 04:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bold Lettering

I'm confused as to why there is so much bold lettering in this article. <3Clamster 13:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Lol, because those are the important parts man. Voshvoshka 02:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

errors

This article needs extensive editing. There are just too many errors.

Rewriting

Right now I'm completely rewriting the article's plot summary, to make it a wee more accurate and well-written (though, admittedly, writing isn't exactly my strong suit, and it probably shows). I'm at the part where the man kills Mitch, the third conspirator; and I hope to get it all done sometime soon. Svalbard in winter 01:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

HI all

ive read the book and found very interesting. Ive got one question though, the part where they are talking about the Knight Templars the book say that veritas vos liberabit is to motto of the templars, dos anyone know wether this i true??

Jonathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.196.117 (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I found large portions of the book highly readable and interesting. However there were a several points in the book that I found inaccurate or distracting:

• Early in the story, the report is made that the Vatican willingly dissolved the Templar order as part of a comspiracy with the French king. News about a recently discovered codex in the Vatican in which the pope is reported as saying that the Templars were not heretical seems to support the more common view that the French king intimidated a reluctant pope into dissolving the order.
• The popular 'DaVinci Code' theory of a Holy Grail bloodline has been challenged on the History Channel and in readily-available publications. Even if some choose to believe this, it is unfortunate to drag it into a central plotline of yet another book.
• The long-sought document is called a codex. To my knowledge, there is no clear evidence that codices existed during the 1st Century C.E. There are some interesting possibilities: In the New Testament work 2nd Timothy, Paul ask his friend to bring him his personal library, adding "especially the parchments." The early codex was called a 'parchment', but there is no evidence of its existence at such an early date. Perhaps Paul had another reason for placing a higher priority on these documents--They may have contained writings of a higher value to him. It is also interesting that once the codex was invented, Christians quickly preferred it to scrolls, but extant copies do not exist from the 1st Century.
• The supposed 1st-Century codex is said to be written in Aramaic. This seems to be based on a misconception that Hebrew had become a dead language by the time of Jesus. The theory that Hebrew was replaced by Aramaic in the centuries following the Babylonian exile has been disproven. Some Dead Sea Scrolls are written in Hebrew, many post-exile Apocryphal books were in Hebrew, and the Mishnah was in Hebrew. Josephus (speaking of a prior period) drew a distinction between Hebrew and Aramaic. Both Hebrew and Aramaic were evidently spoken in 1st Century Palestine. There is no evidence that when the Gospel accounts say Jesus spoke Hebrew or read Hebrew that they mean anything but Hebrew.
• There is long moralizing near the end of the book critical of Catholicism, Christianity, and religion in general. Dogmatic statements and generalizations are left almost unchallenged by the devout Catholic Reilly. He is finally thrust fully into agnosticism by high-ranking members of the Vatican hierarchy, who begrudgingly admit Christianity is a hoax and ask his help in keeping the hoax alive. His loss of faith is a key factor in the subsequent plot, but the primary character, herself an agnostic, draws back from calling religion totally useless because it creates structure in peoples' lives, motivates do-gooderism, and its end might cause global chaos. As much as the author attempted to provide what he considered a balanced approach to the spiritual issues, along with a surprise ending, I found the conclusion disappointing both in the way the archaeolical discovery was minimized and in the lack of details about the future the main characters.4.175.48.79 23:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term "the Vatican"

In discussions like this, as well as in articles that deal with the period 1305 to 1376, it is historically incorrect to use the term "the Vatican" when referring to the Papacy of the Roman Catholic Church. During this period of time, the Papacy was not located in the Vatican, or in Rome, or even in Italy. It was located in Avignon, France. Seven Popes of the Roman Catholic Church, beginning with Pope Clement V (in 1305), constitute what is known as "the Avignon Papacy." More to the point, it was Pope Clement V that conspired with the French King, Philip the Fair, in the arrests, imprisonments, tortures and martyrdom of many Templar knights and their Grand Master Jacques de Molai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.127.243 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need this?

A plot summary and a list of characters for this throwaway paperback who's only claim to fame is that it's so similar to The Da Vinci Code??? Was any controversy engendered by the publication? Did Dan Brown threaten to sue? This was one of the worst novels I've read - and here it is glorified by Wikipedia! Absolutely stupid.--Jack Upland 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a non biased website, so u can take ur opinions to like a fucking book review or something. Voshvoshka (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The last Templar

Where the Northmen of Nord Money lost Nord Money for rescuing the last Templars the Northmen gained Australia as escapee convicts and made friends with Templars who helped the Northmen rescue the Flemish in England during 1066. 1.124.104.236 (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Plot Summary

It looks like the plot summary was lost to vandalism on 28 August 2009. Although the vandalizing text was removed in the next edit, the plot summary was never restored. I'm re-adding the plot summary to the main text, to keep it in line with other Wikipedia articles. If someone is familiar with novel, please review it and clean it up if needed. Thanks! -- Macoukji (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)