Toronto Star

---

Da Vinci conspiracy far-fetched: Prof

Author jumps between 'distant lily pads'
Opus Dei critical of book's take on Constantine

May 15, 2006.

STUART LAIDLAW

FAITH AND ETHICS REPORTER

---

Well, I knew something was coming out since I sat for the picture, but the prominence of the interview surprised me. Seriously, I thought Stuart Laidlaw did a reasonable job of working with some pretty free conversations we had. I need to set the record straight, however, on the dating of the Gospel of Mark. Laidlaw's article says:

Marshall says there is no shortage of other gospels that could have been — but weren't — included in the Bible as it was being developed in the centuries after the death of Jesus. In fact, the first gospel, Mark, wasn't written until some 60 years after Jesus died.

"He could have lived and died twice by the time the gospels were written," says Marshall.

I don't have access to Laidlaw's voice recording, but I doubt that I said specifically that the Gospel of Mark was 60 years after Jesus and if I did it was a slip of the tongue in a fast conversation. I hold to a fairly standard dating of 69 or 70 C.E. The actual quote Laidlaw offers is accurate, but it speaks of Gospels in the plural and I would stand by it for the canonical gospels.

The article's introductory gambit--an embarassingly flattering introduction--reproduces an episode in the novel. I'll be getting grief over that one.