Holy Blood, Holy Grail

Rating:
Summary: If this might have happened the that might have etc, etc...
Review: If this might have happened the that might have happened and if that might have happened then those other thing might have happened and if whoo whoo whoo that happened then such and such could have happened and wow then that means that some other thing might just have done this and even more so then if low and behold the result could have resulted in _________ and ________ might have caused ________... Yup that's the outline for the book. :-(

Rating:
Summary: Poor logic but fun read
Review: I read this years ago in hard cover and found it to be quite a fun read. In part, the fun was amusement over the authors' illogic. The single biggest problem (of many many problems) is that if the European royalty based their authority on the blood line of Jesus, then they would have had to make their claim public knowledge for it to have been of any use to them. Instead, the claim (if there was one outside the authors' imagination) was kept entirely secret. That would be like Al Gore having proof he won in Florida, refusing to tell anyone, but expecting to be made president.

I was suprised to see that Dan Brown has borrowed much of what's here in his DA VINCI CODE. There's also a brief tie in to James BeauSeigneur's excellent novel, IN HIS IMAGE, BOOK ONE OF THE CHRIST CLONE TRILOGY (which I notice that several readers have recommended). Bottom line is that it's fun to read but don't take it too seriously.

Also recommended: James BeauSeigneur's THE CHRIST CLONE TRILOGY and Dan Brown's DA VINCI CODE

Rating:
Summary: Whole-y book, kinda frail
Review: This book, which theorizes that Christ have faked his death and lived to survive a lineage that is now found in france(?!) accd to the 'research' and conclusion of its authors - might've been promising if it lived up to the critics' claim in their reviews, that this book have leveled into a fine "un-biased" "journalistic" approach. Apparently, the authors are totally predjudiced in their predicaments, and in their choice of resource materials resulting to that the book suffered into a whole lot of lenghty balabor, leaving a lot of holes amidst the 'facts' presumed and in their resulting analysis, that one would get the feeling that this whole book is only trying to encapsulate a siries of books about their (the authors') studies from which they have come to claim their conclusion about, which have come to be the theme of the book. The paperback edition features extras, including the narrative of the books' authors in response to their critics. Followed by a sequel "The Messianic Legacy". Anyhow, if in any case - sure it might be journalistic after all... bad-kind of journalism that is.

Rating:
Summary: Absurd!!!
Review: If you like fiction and fantasy then this book will suit your needs. If you like truthful history then this book is not for you.
The authors of this book have been deceived like anyone else who does not do a bit more research about this subject. By making BIG, speculative leaps to conclusions is the reason for the deception. Anyone who does a little background research will soon discover that Pierre Plantard was a pathological liar with an imagination that would lead some to believe he was on an acid trip.
Contrary to what one might think, the Holy Grail is not some French 'Bloodline' of Jesus Christ that was to be protected at all costs. It never was. It was a story concocted by Plantard.
All in all it's nothing but bovine scatacism. But hey, if you like a good yarn then buy the book. I used mine to start a camp fire.

Rating:
Summary: Very Interesting, Perhaps Possible
Review: I had read this book a number of years ago, and have just re-ordered it. I found the whole book very interesting, and a lot (but not all) of the conclusions reached make sense when put into context. Although some other reviewers have complained of its complexity at times, that's what made it so interesting to me. I suggest reading it cover to cover.

As far as "debunking" this book, other reviewers have also complained about the dubious references and sketchy evidence in the book. However, there are two problems with their approach, at least to me.

First, while it's true the authors have no irrefutable iron-clad proof their claims are true, the reviewer(s) have no irrefutable proof the claims are not true.

Second, would anyone expect iron-clad irrefutable proof? Heck, we don't even have any proof as to Jack The Ripper's actual identity from a couple of hundred years ago. We expect something from 2000 years ago, written by the winners (should some of the claims be true) and truths hidden (should other of the claims be true) to have a blinking neon sign and notarized paperwork?

So, if you read it, decide for yourself what makes sense, and what doesn't. And not all of it does. Decide what references might be real and which might be pure guesswork. Which I'm sure some are.

If you don't have an open mind that is at least up to thinking in terms of possibilites, don't bother reading this because it will just upset you.

Rating:
Summary: "a true tissue of absurdities" - but entertaining
Review: Now a classic of conspiracy theory, this ambitious little tome made its debut in 1981 as a follow-up to several "tantalizing" BBC films on the general subject(s) that had been produced by co-author Henry Lincoln in the late 70's. If one bears in mind this fact - that "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is essentially the literary equivalent of a hackneyed "pop" documentary designed to fascinate bored AD&D players for a half hour - then one can appreciate the book for what it is: entertaining, portentious-sounding fluff. The supplementary fact that those AD&D players (and their ilk) naturally tend to fanaticism, and will naturally fanatically buy into the entire franchise, wholesale, on the ground floor, with minimal coaching, and promote it to heights of lunacy uncontemplated in the wildest dreams of the original authors, needn't trouble the balanced and healthy gentle-reader. The book itself internally dispels most of its own "earth-shaking" assertions if one troubles to glance at the references - inevitably, every time a truly significant scrap of data is presented, it turns out to have been culled from at-best-questionable sources if not from pure hearsay. Or, its alleged significance is only a function of its gross and (one must assume) willful misinterpretation at the hands of the wily "academic detectives" Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln.

E.g., pp. 124-25: "In 1629, when Rosicrucian interest in Europe was at its zenith, a man named Robert Denyau, cure of Gisors, composed an exhaustive history of Gisors and the Gisors family. In this manuscript Denyau states explicitly that the Rose-Croix was founded by Jean de Gisors in 1188. In other words, there is a verbatim seventeenth-century confirmation of the claims made by the 'Prieure documents.' Granted, Denyau's manuscript was composed some four and a half centuries after the alleged fact. But it constitutes an extremely important fragment of evidence." Indeed a finding of this sort would rouse the interest of any orthodox scholar of the phenomenon of Rosicrucianism, and might seem to suggest that the "Prieure documents" - the series of French books, pamphlets, articles, etc on these topics which apparently form the foundation for most of the contentions of "HBHG" - rest on a basis of meticulous and erudite scholarship. UNTIL one checks the footnote: "We have this information from 'Prieure' sources. We have seen the manuscript in question at the Bibliotheque de Rouen, 'Histoire polytique....' by Robert Denyau, 1629 (...). There are major difficulties in verifying the information. Of some 575 handwritten pages, the majority are barely legible and many pages are missing while others have been cut or had sections removed or deleted." Or to put it another way, "This is hearsay based on 400-year-old mangled indecipherable chicken scratchings." They have it from "Prieure" sources that the manuscript confirms certain claims of the "Prieure documents?" It is simply bad scholarship to allow such an obvious dead-end to carry the weight of authenticated data, and plainly perfidious to stress in one's text that it "constitutes an extremely important fragment of evidence." Our authors might just as well have assured us that the "Histoire polytique" also includes (illegible) annotated transcriptions of Jesus' lost dental records.

Again, in asserting a possible perpetuation of the Merovingian bloodline through Sigisbert IV, who is claimed (by the "Prieure documents" of course) to have been smuggled to the south of France after the murder of his father Dagobert II in 679, the authors cite as circumstantial evidence a charter dating from 718 which pertains to the foundation of a monastery by "Sigebert, Comte de Rhedae and his wife, Magdala." This is interesting (in context) not only because it specifically links the Merovingian name Sigebert with the title "Comte de Rhedae," but because of the interpolation of the name "Magdala," which obviously suggests the Magdalen, the elusive Gospel figure whose mysterious significance is constantly stressed in the "Prieure documents." So suppose one wanted to have a look at this curious document for oneself. Footnote: "This charter supposedly originates from Villas Capitanarias....We tried to locate the charter without success. The archives of Capitanarias are held in the Archives de l'Aude, Series H. But the charter does not appear....('Prieure document' author) Jean Delaude (stated) that the charter existed in the French National Archives, that it was uncatalogued, and that even with the help of an archivist it had taken him two months to trace it....he gave no information on how this charter could be traced by anybody else." So once again we have unsubstantiated information being passed off as "Gospel Truth," with the embarrassing details of its actual providence (or lack thereof) consigned to a footnote. Baigent et al. may be prepared to take the statements of alleged associates of the "Prieure" at face value, but there is no logical reason why anybody else should.

These issues sound rather pedantic and trifling; in fact, they are; but they accurately demonstrate the sort of academic sleight-of-hand employed by the authors to create historic mountains out of molehills. Simply put, any historian willing to perpetrate such subtle indiscretions of scholarship cannot be relied upon to paint an authoritative and unbiased picture of events. Clearly the authors are personally vested in substantiating the claims of the "Prieure de Sion" - which organization the shrewd reader will probably nonetheless conclude adheres primarily in the person of a single eccentric, Pierre Plantard "de Saint-Clair."

Aside from these schoolboy games with data, the "conspiracy through the centuries" traced by the authors is really just a droll chronological amalgamation of dozens of historically salient conspiracy theories. Of COURSE the Cathars and the Knights Templar were privy to the "secret;" of course Freemasonry was directly descended therefrom; of course we must indict the Rose-Croix and the Grail romances and the Gnostic heresies and the Qabalah and the prophecies of Nostradamus and nigh every other item on the roster of Western esotericism as bearing upon the Mystery of which the Prieure is the sole true custodian. It is the ordinary yarn of the "secret society."

Rating:
Summary: Forget the Middle
Review: If the reader confines their reading to the Introduction to the Paperback Edition, and the Introduction proper, then jumps ahead to page 316 and reads from there, this will be a fun and satisfying read. All the middle material is truly Byzantine in the sense of convoluted and confusing.

The authors fascinating theories concerning Jesus and Mary Magdalene make this book worthwhile. Forget the rest.

Rating:
Summary: Rennes-Le-Chateau Lore
Review: For anyone interested in the Rennes-Le-Chateau enigma, this is a worthwhile read. If you're interested in the Knights Templar, I'd suggest "The history of the Knights Templars, the Temple Church, and the Temple" by C.G. Addison. Whatever your reason for reading this book, it should be noted that the authors fail to cite credible, historical, evidence to support any of their assertions. For those interested in the Christian response to the suggestions in this book, I suggest "The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence For The Life of Christ" by Gary R. Habermas. Reading both works will enable you to make a more informed decision about the Historical Jesus and the Holy Grail legend. My closing advice ... take everything you read in this book with a large grain of salt.

Rating:
Summary: A Rather Silly Conspiracy Theory
Review: This is perhaps the best of the works of modern conspiracy theory, and is a highly entertaining book, although it is along the lines of a vice to read it. Although it is meticulously footnoted and researched, it is implausible on many levels, and clearly a work of speculative fiction.

Briefly: Christ did not die on the cross, but rather was brought to the south of France, where he and his wife, Mary Magdalene, gave birth to a line of Kings, the Merovingians. This family of kings later, after losing the throne, becomes instrumental in the founding of the Knights Templar (of course the Templars have to be involved -- no good conspiracy can exist without them) and the Templars shadowy sister organization, a brotherhood known as the Prieur de Sion (the Priory of Sion). With the reconquest of the Middle East in the crusades, the family is prepared to put a Merovingian back on the throne, but the plot does not succeed. So they go underground. Periodically hints of their existence come to light in Freeemasonry and the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau. The secret head of the order has always been a highly influential person in the world of politics, science, or culture, (Victor Hugo, Isaac Newton are said to have been in charge of the Prieur de Sion), and the organization is said to be playing a part in several Gaullist conspiracies.

The books leaps of logic (if A is possibly true then B is certainly true, so we can now assert the implausible C) and the want of motive for an organization liek the Prieur de Sion to be secret these days -- this isn't the fourteenth century, and even if you are plotting to restore the Merovingian dynasty, well, who cares? -- makes a reasoning person able to shatter its notions pretty easily.

Nevertheless, a good read.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent addition for Templar enthusiats!
Review: If you're interested in Templar lore and history, this book is a must have. Its an engrossing tale of these three writers and thier search for the truth about one of the most mysterious organizations that ever existed. Its well worth it for its historical value. I must recommend to all.