The London trial pitting Dan Brown against the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail continues. Brown issued a 69-page "witness statement" summarized here:

In the statement, Brown spends relatively little time denying the "astounding" claims of Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh that he stole the "architecture" of their book. He does not even mention the book by name it until the 39th page of his statement and later states that he has still not read of all of it because he finds it "extremely detailed and hard to read".

Instead, the famously reclusive 41-year-old gives a potted autobiography, describing his early artistic endeavours as a musician and composer, his love of science, history and art, and the difficult genesis of his literary career. The message throughout is clear: I am a serious professional writer; I don’t steal other people’s ideas.

Elsewhere, Dan Brown, Defender of the Faith

Similarities there may be and some have been struck by them. But in response to media coverage, Brown took the opportunity to highlight at least one crucial difference: “One of the ideas in The Holy Blood — perhaps even the central idea — is advertised on the back of my copy of the book: ‘Is it possible Christ did not die on the Cross?’ This is not an idea that I would ever have found appealing. Being raised Christian and having sung in my church choir for 15 years, I am well aware that Christ’s Crucifixion (and ultimate Resurrection) serves as the very core of the Christian faith. It is the promise of life everlasting and that which makes Jesus ‘the Christ’. The Resurrection is perhaps the sole controversial Christian topic about which I would not desire to write; suggesting a married Jesus is one thing, but questioning the Resurrection undermines the very heart of Christian belief.”

Nice try, Dan. But since the gist of your book is that Jesus is "merely mortal" and that’s all "Christians" believed about him until Constantine forced them to do otherwise….forgive us if we’re not stunned by your razor-sharp intellect!