Rating: 
Summary: Incoherent, but a must ot readers of HBHG
Review: Firstly, this book is much less coherent than "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." (If you did not read that book, do NOT buy this one. HBHG is a wonderful book, pseudo-history at it's best. ML assumes you know the theories laid out in HBHG). The first fourth of the book is just more "proof" of the authors' claims about Jesus. It adds the claim that Timothy was Jesus's twin and that Saint Paul distorted Christianity, but it's not all that interesting.The second fourth is devoted to vicious (and now dated) attacks against President Ronal Reagan and American fundementalists. The authors, instead of criticising Reagen on his record, choose a barage of name calling. The second half of the book is a masterpiece. It continues the Holy Blood, Holy Grail story by adding more information. Pierre Plantard figures prominently, and the Priere of Sion is made more "round." If you loved Holy Blood, Holy Grail you will almost love this book. Once you get the first half out of the way it is hard to put down. Though nothing "definitive" is reached, the conspiracy looks even better. When you finish it you wish the book was longer... parting with this book is "such sweet sorrow." And as always, more cryptic mottos: Et In Arcadia Ego... Etats Unis d'Occident 1937-1946
Rating: 
Summary: Best book I ever read.
Review: Great book, easy to understand . Once you start reading it , you can never stop.
Rating:
Summary: Mixed feelings about this work
Review: Having been fascinated by the authors' The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, I had high expectations for this one. The first part of the book met these expectations, with a historical review of Judeo/Christian evolution.
Then came part 2...
The rambling and incredible bias presented in this section almost caused me to put down the book (despite the fact that I don't disagree with their opinions). It is editorialism at its worst and greatly detracts from the book.
Part 3 somewhat redeems the book, with a focus back on the Prieure de Sion, and the touch of historical journalism that made the first book so powerful.
If you can bring yourself to skim through (or skip altogether) the second part, the book is very recommendable. While I can sympathize with the authors' angst, it really detracts from the book's literary value, and creates a disjointedness making it hard to follow. That said, I gained much from the more factually stated portions of the book.
Rating: 
Summary: False Christianity
Review: I began reading this book out of curiousity but quit about halfway through. The absolutely bogus research that went in to this book was more than I could stomach. The back cover hype, ie "...rocked the foundations of Christianity" and "...earth shaking consequences" should've been a clue that this would be the same tired old Christian-bashing nonsense which has so much appeal for new-agers and atheists who refuse to accept Chrisianity for what it is. Here are only a few examples from the book:
Paul started a new pagan cult with Jesus as God. Please show me in the New Testament where Paul proclaimed Jesus was God! (p.96) Most Biblical scholars concur that the churches that developed in Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt were not diluted by Pauline thought as in Rome.
Fact: The Syrian Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and Coptic Egyptian churches, although not influenced by Rome, are very orthodox in their beliefs, use and revere the very same Bible but only in their native language, ie Coptic, Arabic, or Assyrian/Aramaic, revere the Apostle Paul and read his epistles in their liturgies. Have these "Biblical scholars" ever researched these churches or sat in on one of their liturgies? Do they even exist? (p.103) Simeon bar Kochba was angry with Jewish Christians for foresaking their Zealot roots and becoming pro Roman pacifistic "Pauline" Christians.
Fact: Simeon bar Kochba was a fanatical self-proclaimed messiah who murdered Jewish Christians for remaining faithful to Jesus and not accepting bar Kochba as the messiah. (pp.107-108) Nazarean thought survived in the heresy known as Nestorian Christianity.
Fact: So called "Nestorian" Christianity refers to the Assyrian Church of the East which prior to the 5th century was part of the Syrian Orthodox Church. As such, they revere the Nicene Creed which they recite in their liturgy, use and revere the same Bible we do only in their language, and revere the Epistles of Paul and read them in their liturgy. Egyptian monastic communities perpetuated "Nazarean" thought.
Fact: Anybody who has ever read the Sayings or Lives of the Desert Fathers would know that the Egyptian hermits were ultra-orthodox in their beliefs, read and often memorized the same Bible, especially the Pauline Epistles, and abhorred Gnostic dualism. The book claims that the Jewish Christians used the Gospel of Thomas which predates the canonical Gospels.
Fact: The Gospel of Thomas was written in the second century and used by Gnostic Christians who tried to add pagan myths to Chrisitanity and went so far as to deny Jesus' humanity. These are only a few examples of the absurdities presented in this book.
The book makes references to the fictional "Passover Plot" by Hugh Schonfield and the research of Robert Eisenman, a sensational Christian basher (see my review on James the Brother of Jesus). I'm not a fundamentalist Bible thumper but a serious seeker. I regret that I've wasted too much time reading this kind of junk. If you want to understand Jesus and early Christianity, stick with your family Bible.
Rating:
Summary: False Christianity
Review: I began reading this book out of curiousity but quit about halfway through. The absolutely bogus research that went in to this book was more than I could stomach. The back cover hype, ie "...rocked the foundations of Christianity" and "...earth shaking consequences" should've been a clue that this would be the same tired old Christian-bashing nonsense which has so much appeal for new-agers and atheists who refuse to accept Chrisianity for what it is. Here are only a few examples from the book:
Paul started a new pagan cult with Jesus as God. Please show me in the New Testament where Paul proclaimed Jesus was God! (p.96) Most Biblical scholars concur that the churches that developed in Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt were not diluted by Pauline thought as in Rome.
Fact: The Syrian Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and Coptic Egyptian churches, although not influenced by Rome, are very orthodox in their beliefs, use and revere the very same Bible but only in their native language, ie Coptic, Arabic, or Assyrian/Aramaic, revere the Apostle Paul and read his epistles in their liturgies. Have these "Biblical scholars" ever researched these churches or sat in on one of their liturgies? Do they even exist? (p.103) Simeon bar Kochba was angry with Jewish Christians for foresaking their Zealot roots and becoming pro Roman pacifistic "Pauline" Christians.
Fact: Simeon bar Kochba was a fanatical self-proclaimed messiah who murdered Jewish Christians for remaining faithful to Jesus and not accepting bar Kochba as the messiah. (pp.107-108) Nazarean thought survived in the heresy known as Nestorian Christianity.
Fact: So called "Nestorian" Christianity refers to the Assyrian Church of the East which prior to the 5th century was part of the Syrian Orthodox Church. As such, they revere the Nicene Creed which they recite in their liturgy, use and revere the same Bible we do only in their language, and revere the Epistles of Paul and read them in their liturgy. Egyptian monastic communities perpetuated "Nazarean" thought.
Fact: Anybody who has ever read the Sayings or Lives of the Desert Fathers would know that the Egyptian hermits were ultra-orthodox in their beliefs, read and often memorized the same Bible, especially the Pauline Epistles, and abhorred Gnostic dualism. The book claims that the Jewish Christians used the Gospel of Thomas which predates the canonical Gospels.
Fact: The Gospel of Thomas was written in the second century and used by Gnostic Christians who tried to add pagan myths to Chrisitanity and went so far as to deny Jesus' humanity. These are only a few examples of the absurdities presented in this book.
The book makes references to the fictional "Passover Plot" by Hugh Schonfield and the research of Robert Eisenman, a sensational Christian basher (see my review on James the Brother of Jesus). I'm not a fundamentalist Bible thumper but a serious seeker. I regret that I've wasted too much time reading this kind of junk. If you want to understand Jesus and early Christianity, stick with your family Bible.
Rating: 
Summary: Resorts to Unsubstantiated Leaps of Faith
Review: I loved Holy Blood Holy Grail and expected the same level of thoughtful research/sleuthing to go into this sequel. I was disappointed. In HBHG, the theories were supported with some form of data, either historical, or logicial, or published, etc. In this book, many of the theories are simply presented and left unsubstianted... as if we are to accept them simply because Baigent and Leigh said so. I started to lose interest when they presented their evidence on the nature/identity of Judas Iscariot. Relying on a similarity between two sounding words does not an argument make! While I found HBHG highly believable, this book, in my mind, destroys Baigent and Leigh's credibility through the usage of flawed, unsubstianted, long leaps of faith. No one who presents compelling theories should rest on their laurels instead of their research.
Rating:
Summary: Get Real!
Review: I wouldn't waste my time reading this crap! This stuff is enough to gag a maggot! Are there so many ignorant people in this world who would seriously believe this? Anybody want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?
Rating: 
Summary: Biblical scholarship and religion are two different things..
Review: I'm a bit baffled by the animosity expressed in the reviews of this book. I can only conclude that it is the result of poor marketing pulling in the wrong audience, since when I read the sensational cover blurbs I, too, almost put the book down. Upon committing and actually reading the work, however, I was pleasantly surprised and very much enjoyed the authors' perspectives. Frankly, there was nothing terribly earth-shattering inside. The book is largely a plausible and enjoyable exploration of Jesus as Messiah with an attempt to clarify what a Messiah really was (& is). This includes some discussion of specific problems of translation and misinterpretation. While this is hardly revolutionary scholarship, I must admit that I appreciate having specific instances of ambiguity pointed out to me by someone in a position to translate. One example of this is the authors' discussion of the association of Jesus with Nazareth, a town that did not yet exist in his time. They conclude that this is actually a reference to "Nazarean", which would tie Jesus to a radical political sect of the time. This political aspect of the Messianic is also expanded to include fascinating but brief perspectives on other candidates, including Constantine, Napolean & Hitler. There are interesting--if truncated--discussions of Christian history, providing a thread of continuity to what is typically presented as very spotty, periodic and localized events liberally dosed with mythology and agenda. I was particularly interested to discover the importance of the Celtic church as a repository of scholarship during the middle ages, something I was unaware of. In contrast to the other reviewers, I noticed no glaringly hideous inaccuracies in the authors' presentation. For instance and in direct rebuttal, some of the Christian churches definitely DO differ on points considered heretical by Rome. The Armenian and Coptic churches, for example, DID splinter off after the Nicean council condemned their theology as Monophositic heresy. This was an argument that was ALL about the divinity of Jesus, something near and dear to Paul's heart. Pointing this out doesn't make one a bad writer, anti-Catholic or an evil person. The book also discusses the vacuum of--for lack of a better term--"spiritual resonance" in modern western culture and official religion. The authors discuss the role of art, religion, politics & myth in fulfilling the deep psychological human need for meaning. They deride the application of advertising to capitalize on this aspect of humanity for petty gains. While potentially interesting, the allusions to Jesus' bloodline, the Prieure of Sion, Knights Templar & other secret societies seemed rather peripheral -- intended primarily to tie this book to their previous best-seller, Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The linkages are a bit strained, but since this seems to be where the authors think their bread-and-butter lies, I guess they had to throw in something, however vague. This is a great read for anyone who is interested in an introduction to the fascinating field of biblical scholarship without the necessity of devolving into scriptural dogma. I would also recommend Umberto Eco for readable historical fiction with a massive dose of erudition related to the same issues.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed
Review: Interesting but flawed in many respects. I like the way this guy just drops his theories on the table and expects readers to suspend 2000 years of history and culture and believe this stuff. Sorry but just because someone has a sexy new theory about Jesus and who he was and is, doesn't mean its right, especially when there's no fact and evidence to back up the theory except mere ancient poetry.
Rating:
Summary: Fictional Non-fiction at its best
Review: Isn't it interesting how the farther away from a period of time we get, the more historians seem to know more and more about it? The ridiculous premise of this book is only one such example.
| 
