Rating: 
Summary: Gripping Story, Flawed Research
Review: Summary: Baigent completed an interesting review of Europe's Royal Bloodlines (Merovingian). His writing style makes the subject come to life and appear to be accurate. However, his ultimate hypothesis rests on very weak and inaccurate biblical quotes demonstrating a cursory research and knowledge of the bible. This issue renders his final hypothesis highly doubtful and his base genealogical research of the Merovingian bloodlines fully under question. Recommendation: I would recommend Baigent's book as interesting and thought provoking reading, while encouraging self-research and skepticism by the reader. While I found Baigent's book useful in understanding what family the anti-Christ derives from (that is, the lineage of the serpent/dragon that dwells in the "sea"), the average person can be deceived into believing biased suppositions and allegations lacking appropriate research. Overall, it seems as if Baigent is a dupe who has been supported to spout whatever stories the Merovingians need to support their own questionable objectives. Review: Although, highly offensive to Christians, the book can be relevant to biblically knowledgeable people IF his genealogical research of the royal families from 400 BC forward is accurate. The bizarre myth of the origination of the Merovingians (a pregnant woman being re-impregnated by a serpent/dragon while swimming in the ocean) can be re-interpreted from the bible and its symbolism found in the books of Genesis (Gen 3 - the Serpent) and Revelation (Rev 12 - the dragon). This is the myth that the Merovingian Dynasty relies on in order to re-acquire the throne of Europe leads Christian's to interpret the Merovingians to be the ancestors of the still prophetic world leader (commonly known as the anti-Christ). Further, Baigent touts that this royal family heir should be able to solve the religious problems and bring together the Jews, Christians, Moslems - another Christian prophesy specifically regarding the anti-Christ. Examples of Feeble Research: 1 Re-interpretation of Catholic Church History Baigent seems to enjoy re-interpreting the Catholic Church's actions into supporting the tenants of the Merovingian Blood line. But, offers no proof. Numerous times Baigent notes that the Catholic Church "backs" down when "presented" with the Prior de Sion "secret information. However, Baigent never confirms the information presented to the Church, and never provides supporting material to explain the Church's actions and decisions. His only explanation is theory based on conjecture based on assumption based on supposition. The Catholic Church may have many reasons to (correctly, or incorrectly) to make a decision on. The least of the factors affecting the Church's decisions would be information that is not demonstrable, not confirmable, with no sound basis to support a change in Church Doctrine and specifically supports the Church's own prophesies of the Anti-Christ. This feeble research weakens "Baigent's" base genealogical research. NOTE: This review is not to be interpreted as a defense of the Catholic Church - it stands in its own beliefs, blessings, blood and sins. Nor, is this review a blind defense to Christianity - it is based on valid study of the bible and its text that is verifiable to all readers. 2 Two Genealogies of Christ Baigent accounts for the differences between the 2 genealogies in Matthew and Luke as demonstrating "mistakes" in the bible. However, the issue is readily understandable: Matthew and Luke present Christ's genealogy for different purposes, and from different perspectives. Matthew communicates the gospel from viewpoint of Jew - Christ is presented as the Lion of Tribe of Judah. For this, Matthew starts Christ's lineage with Abraham progressing through David and Solomon, then progressing through Christ's legal father, Joseph, and finishing by presenting Christ as the Messiah - the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Luke's genealogy is specifically a very different genealogy, but it states it is of Jesus the "supposed" son of Joseph which is the son of Heli.... and on. This is not a "begotten" genealogy (bloodline), but a Mother's genealogy that is represented in accordance with the Jewish custom - Hebrews did not permit the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted the husband as the son of him who was in reality the father-in-law. That is, Heli is Joseph's Father-in-law. This is consistent with Old Testament lineages of David the show Boaz as David's ancestor, but does not mention Rahab, who is also significant and mentioned in other passages. Luke was a physician and was preoccupied with presenting Christ as the Son of Man - in his humanity. He showed that Christ was God incarnate. Borne of a Virgin into humanity. Luke starts Christ's genealogy from 1st man - Adam - to King David. However, Luke goes through David directly to David's son Nathan - Solomon's brother. His genealogy is then traced through to Heli, Mary's Father. This demonstrates the actual Blood line of Christ. Second, these genealogies are very significant in that they comply with every requirement of prophecy and law in the Hebrew scriptures. Including in Genesis 3, where the Messiah had to be born of the Virgin. Second, Jeremiah 22 states that God placed a blood curse on the lineage of David from King Jeconiah forward - that is no one of Jeconiah's descendants shall sit on the throne of David. Joseph was of this bloodline and lineage and therefore disqualified from sitting on the throne of David. Luke's lineage of Mary (Luke 3) goes through David and not through Solomon, but through Nathan, a branch that avoids the Jeconiah blood curse (Jeremiah 22) "None of His seed will prosper". Thus, Mary, who is the blood "Virgin" parent of Jesus was not cursed and therefore the proper blood forebear of the Christ, while Joseph was the legal heir to the throne, but, not the blood heir of the Messiah. This issue is in stark contrast to the Merovingian bloodline which requires Joseph's and Christ's bloodline to support its dynastic ruse. The Merovingian genealogy goes through the bloodline of Joseph and therefore is accursed by God (Jeremiah 22) and will specifically never sit upon David's throne. (Other Genealogical Notes for the Curious) John unabashedly focuses on Christ as the Son of God - Deity - and includes things in his gospel that are quite different than the other gospels. John's gospel demonstrates the genealogy of the pre-existent one who was before all else. He created everything and everything was created by him. Christ pre-existed all of creation. John uses the term "fulfilled" 38 times to focuses on who he was as prophesied in the old testament. Baigent fully misses this genealogy and its full significance of demonstrating Christ as God. Mark presents Christ as the Suffering Servant who came to earth to serve mankind. Mark does not give Christ's genealogy because no one cares about the bloodline of a servant. Mark continually demonstrates Christ's works, or services to his people - those with faith. The four gospels are very consistent in how they show Christ and his genealogy as the Messiah in accordance with the Hebrew scriptures: Matthew, the Legal Heir to the Throne of David; Luke the lineage of a man from the first man, Adam; John the lineage of God, who came down as the Messiah; and Mark which shows Christ as the suffering servant, and as such a servant, does not have a lineage.
Rating: 
Summary: What an well written bit of one-sided pseudo-hystery [sic]
Review: I remember when I read this as a gullible 20something, shortly after it's publication. I actually considered it to be real for a while, until, of course, I did some actual research into history and source documents and found HBHG to be as reliable as a Bill Clinton protestation of marital fidelity. A wonderful example is the fact the Priory of Zion actually dates back to the 1950s. Apparently, for those trying to discredit Christianity, truth is something in flux, and the evidence of the authenticity of the NT canon is something to be ignored. However, should one be interested in FACTS and REAL historical research, I might recommend Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Josh McDowell), The Case for Christ (Lee Strobel), or, perhaps something by Irenaeus of Lyons. The further back one goes in Christian History, the more certain of Christ's divinity one becomes. Don't be fooled by trash like this and "The DaVinci code"
Rating: 
Summary: Shocking; a death nail; nonetheless very good reading;
Review: I can see why this book would have been at the top of the list of banned books by the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations.Thank God the Inquisition is not around anymore. People caught reading this book would have been burned at the stake. It's not the average benign coverage of the Holy Grail subject. The authors have provided a convincing explanation of what the Holy Grail is according to their careful reasoning and research. As a Catholic, moreover, as a Christian I welcome controversial material such as this, and I would seriously recommend this book and the collection Gnostic gospels. The four canonical gospels in the Bible only give us half the story of Jesus' life.
Rating: 
Summary: Questions Arise
Review: Although people have been flocking to read the Da Vinci Code, I believe that this book is much more interesting. The Da Vinci Code may be more flashy and fun to read, but HBHG is much more informative and challenges any Christian to question their beliefs. I for one, am not going to take the facts of this book on faith and do more research into this subject myself(as any good skeptic would do). And I reccomend all of you to do the same.
Rating: 
Summary: Holy Blood, Holy Grail
Review: This book is nonsense. Not worth reading. The "comments" on the book cover are not addressed. I was greatly disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: An illusion based on nonsense
Review: The simple truth about this book is that it is utterly lacking in genuine scholarship. It is, in fact, pure speculation based on nothing resembling valid evidence. The purpose of the book seems to be that the "Holy Blood" - the bloodline of the descendents of Jesus Christ - began with the marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene - the "Holy Grail" - at Cana, and the subsequent birth of their child. Quite obviously, then, the whole book depends on the production of some kind of proof that Jesus and Mary were indeed the bridegroom and bride at the marriage at Cana where Jesus is said to have turned water into high quality wine.
Without the marriage and the child nothing else in the book amounts to the proverbial "hill of beans". So, does the book make a good case for this central claim? No.
In fact all it offers is page after page of "if" this, "if" that and "if" the other. And that isn't the worst of it. A little careful reading shows that the authors aren't even sure what the marriage at Cana was about. So, at one point they write: "From the account in the Fourth Gospel, the wedding at Cana would seem to be a modest local ceremony - a typical village wedding..." (page 348). Got that? The marriage at Cana was "modest", "local", a "village wedding".
Okay, let's move forward just 16 (sixteen) pages and see what the book says about that same event: "And the wedding at Cana would seem to bear further witness to Jesus's status and social position.
"This wedding does not appear to have been a modest, humble festival conducted by the 'common people.' On the contrary it bears all the marks of an extravagant aristocratic union, a 'high society' affair attended by at least several hundred guests...
"All things considered, the wedding at Cana would seem to have been a sumptuous ceremony of the gentry or aristocracy." (page 364) Well, I'm not sure how anyone can come to two such diametrically opposed descriptions of a single event and claim that they are indeed both describing the SAME event.
How does a "modest local ceremony - a typical village wedding" manage to also be "an extravagant aristocratic union", "a sumptuous ceremony of the gentry or aristocracy" and "a 'high society' affair attended by at least several hundred guests"? What is patently obvious is that in a rational world these two accounts definitely DO NOT describe the same event.
And if the book can contradict itself in such an extreme fashion over something as simple as a wedding feast, what possible faith can one have in anything else it says? The book is indeed about an illusion, it is most definitely based on nonsense, and it certainly looks as though it assumes that its readers will register off the scale for gullibility. An insulting and unsavoury book of no discernible merit whatsoever - not even as trash fiction.
Rating:
Summary: Book of Non-Fiction
Review: The ultimate conspiracy theory in which you would have to make great leaps of faith to believe. I'd recommend The Case for Christ for a better documention of the life of Christ.
Rating:
Summary: Shoddy Scholarship
Review: The scholarship in this book is actually beyond shoddy. It is the typical work of lazy minds who, lacking true emperical data, invent a story through supposition. It is also not surprising that they add more to the mystique of the so-called Knights Templar, which in reality, amounts to nothing more than a benign fraternal order of no merit. These so-called researchers are typical of the anti-Christian pap that has come out these past few decades. Those who gave this book a positive review obviously have no inkling of biblical history but more significantly, no knowledge of ancient secular history. Philo and Josephus to name two, wrote deep and detailed accounts of Christ's crucifixion and death. When the Romans crucified people, they didn't survive. I would also point out that these two historians of the time were NOT Christian and are regarded as authorities by contemporary scholars. The errors in this book are too numerous to mention here but I applaud those reviewers who point out some of the major flaws. In short, a waste of effort, waste of paper, waste of marketing, waste of a read and a waste of time.
Rating:
Summary: The Mass Wedding at Cana
Review: How interesting to see someone applying intelligent analysis to the supposed facts in this silly book. If this is supposed to be based on genuine historical research then this is surely what every reader should be doing? In fact I do believe co-author Henry Lincoln has been telling lecture audiences not to believe a word of the book until they've done the necessary research. So well done Karl. If I may just add a word of my own, I noted that the book uses the following argument, amongst others, to support its claim that Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage at Cana: "Jesus is specifically 'called' - which is slightly curious perhaps, for he was not yet really embarked on his ministry." Well, it might be curious, if it was an accurate quotation.
But it isn't.
What John's gospel actually says, in the KJV (which the book is quoting from), is: "And Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage."
John 2:2. So if the book's logic is correct I suppose we have to believe that there was not ONE but THIRTEEN bridegrooms at the wedding? All marrying Mary Magdalene?
Please, let's not even go there! This really is a very silly book and in my opinion would not worth the cost if they paid you to take it away.
Rating:
Summary: Challenging Faith!
Review: The Author Michael Baigent et al has all made the attempts to Challenge Faith of Christianity with the theme of the Book, portraying Jesus as not Crucified but lived to marry and bear children whose bloodline continues! A sheer mystery exploration of the Authors with twists of historical facts. At a time when 'Passion of Christ' of Mel Gibson says all about the last twelve hours suffering of Christ, here comes a controversial read challenging even the traditional accepted facts. Jesus Christ did not die on Cross? The very thought is visionary with the most provocative, researched, convincing theory in the 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail', leaves one baffled even to a non christian. It's like reading a Detective, Thriller - an illusionary tale yet making it an interesting read as one wonders : Is this true? I remember earlier a newspaper revealing a story of Jesus who was born in Bethlehem but stayed in India and also another tale that Lord Krishna and Jesus Christ have similiarities, nevertheless to mention, all religious tales are coinciding another, Is it? Anyways, the Research of Authors can be authentic-who knows! Whatever, the Book is definitely a Good Pick and a good Read - Only one need to think Practical as every coin has two sides. A nice Book.
| 
