What do you think?
Rate this book
Holy Blood, Holy Grail
Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, and Richard Leigh, authors of The Messianic Legacy, spent over 10 years on their own kind of quest for the Holy Grail, into the secretive history of early France. What they found, researched with the tenacity and attention to detail that befits any great quest, is a tangled and intricate story of politics and faith that reads like a mystery novel. It is the story of the Knights Templar, and a behind-the-scenes society called the Prieure de Sion, and its involvement in reinstating descendants of the Merovingian bloodline into political power. Why? The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail: The Secret History of Jesus, the Shocking Legacy of the Grail assert that their explorations into early history ultimately reveal that Jesus may not have died on the cross, but lived to marry and father children whose bloodline continues today. The authors' point here is not to compromise or to demean Jesus, but to offer another, more complete perspective of Jesus as God's incarnation in man. The power of this secret, which has been carefully guarded for hundreds of years, has sparked much controversy. For all the sensationalism and hoopla surrounding Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the alternate history that it outlines, the authors are careful to keep their perspective and sense of skepticism alive in its pages, explaining carefully and clearly how they came to draw such combustible conclusions. --Jodie Buller
511 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 1982
935 people are currently reading
8626 people want to read
About the author
Michael Baigent
42 books164 followersMichael Baigent was born in New Zealand in 1948. He graduated with a bachelor's degree in psychology from Canterbury University, Christchurch, and holds a master's degree in mysticism and religious experience from the University of Kent in England. Since 1976 he has lived in England with his wife and children.
Baigent is a Freemason and a Grand Officer of the United Grand Lodge of England. He has also been an editor of Freemasonry Today since 1991. As an author and speculative historian, he has been published in 35 languages; he is the author of From the Omens of Babylon, Ancient Traces, and the New York Times bestseller The Jesus Papers; he is the coauthor of the international bestsellers Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy (with Henry Lincoln and Richard Leigh); and the coauthor of The Temples and the Lodge, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, Secret Germany, The Elixir and the Stone, and The Inquisition (with Richard Leigh).
Baigent is a Freemason and a Grand Officer of the United Grand Lodge of England. He has also been an editor of Freemasonry Today since 1991. As an author and speculative historian, he has been published in 35 languages; he is the author of From the Omens of Babylon, Ancient Traces, and the New York Times bestseller The Jesus Papers; he is the coauthor of the international bestsellers Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy (with Henry Lincoln and Richard Leigh); and the coauthor of The Temples and the Lodge, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, Secret Germany, The Elixir and the Stone, and The Inquisition (with Richard Leigh).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 855 reviews
July 31, 2009
I read this book and ate up every last bit of speculation, theory, and downright invention. The photos creeped me out, and I daydreamed about the possibility that the Knights Templar really had links to Jesus Christ, and that the Freemasons were more than just a bunch of weird old guys that did some boring, yet secret, junk in an old building downtown. Years later, a Freemason mistakenly left a lengthy message on our answering machine in Palm Desert, California. He gave intricate, specific details about the intended receiver of the message's duties at an upcoming Freemason funeral. Wish I'd transcribed it. What I wish even more is that I went ahead and wrote a work of fiction largely based on it. Boy, would I be rich now.
December 5, 2008
I must have picked this book up around the time it came out, which would have made me a sophomore in high school.
When I became a "real" historian, I came to realize just how much of it was hyperbolic tripe but even as a youth, I understood that 90% was speculation (to put it kindly).
The two things it did do for me were:
1. Reveal a Dark Age world of Europe that I hadn't encountered before.
2. Gave the alternate-history buff in me a whole new set of "what-ifs" to think about.
When I became a "real" historian, I came to realize just how much of it was hyperbolic tripe but even as a youth, I understood that 90% was speculation (to put it kindly).
The two things it did do for me were:
1. Reveal a Dark Age world of Europe that I hadn't encountered before.
2. Gave the alternate-history buff in me a whole new set of "what-ifs" to think about.
January 12, 2011
I read The Da Vinci Code and it made me want to read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which was apparently the only book Dan Brown based his own research on.
Only problem with all the "research"? Holy Blood, Holy Grail is at best laughable. They'll tell you something like, "Person A knew Person B who was at a play that Person C also attended, though we have no knowledge they actually knew each other. Furthermore, Person B was born in Italy and from all that we know that Person C passed on essential information to Person A about the nature of Christ." It makes so much sense!
I expected, at any chapter, for them to suggest that really aliens had come down and given vital information to a certain individual and that's the real secret. Come on, people! Were you taught no critical thinking skills?!!
If you like conspiracy theories, have at it. I would think that anyone who read the Da Vinci Code would feel compelled to see where Dan Brown got his information. The fact that almost all of it is from this book? Not a good point for Dan Brown and his best-seller.
Only problem with all the "research"? Holy Blood, Holy Grail is at best laughable. They'll tell you something like, "Person A knew Person B who was at a play that Person C also attended, though we have no knowledge they actually knew each other. Furthermore, Person B was born in Italy and from all that we know that Person C passed on essential information to Person A about the nature of Christ." It makes so much sense!
I expected, at any chapter, for them to suggest that really aliens had come down and given vital information to a certain individual and that's the real secret. Come on, people! Were you taught no critical thinking skills?!!
If you like conspiracy theories, have at it. I would think that anyone who read the Da Vinci Code would feel compelled to see where Dan Brown got his information. The fact that almost all of it is from this book? Not a good point for Dan Brown and his best-seller.
Read
June 15, 2008The fact that I read horribly written books about templars, and things of that ilk, is one of my shameful secrets. I don't believe a word that I've read, but they suck me in.
That part in the Dan Brown book (don't remember if it was DaVinci or Angels) where he was listing off the books in that guy's library? I have all those books...Oh the shame :)
This book, as all similar books, could be about 200-300 pages shorter as they restate their theories in multiple ways. They also all seem to use the same source material, as the mostly contain the same info. This is one of the better written, however.
That part in the Dan Brown book (don't remember if it was DaVinci or Angels) where he was listing off the books in that guy's library? I have all those books...Oh the shame :)
This book, as all similar books, could be about 200-300 pages shorter as they restate their theories in multiple ways. They also all seem to use the same source material, as the mostly contain the same info. This is one of the better written, however.
July 19, 2012
I first read this about 15 years ago. It seems that Dan Brown may also have done so.
The original book, and the revised edition I read several years later, put forward compelling arguments in favour of an alternative history of the established religious version propounded in canonical teaching. Although cleared of plagiarism, Dan Brown appears to have drawn heavily on much of the source material as did the authors of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'.
The authors at no point claim that their theories are fact. They make it clear that they are putting forward a hypothesis regarding what might have taken place, based on many esoteric sources as well as sources accepted to be established historical fact. The amusing part is that although it is a well researched and well written thesis, it reads more like a thriller than any fictionalised accounts that followed - 'The da Vinci Code' included.
Reading 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' led me to several other books -
- 'The Bible' (most people who claim to have read it have not - they have read sections of it, often as directed by a minister).
- 'The Nag Hamiadi Scrolls in English' (translations of the so-called Gnostic Gospels)
- 'Jesus the Man' by by Barbara Thiering (alternative theories by a biblical scholar about where and how the story of Jesus took place, based on learnings from the 'Dead Sea Scrolls').
- to name but three.
I would say that those three books, along with 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' are essential reading for anyone who wishes to read up on and understand the origins of Christianity - for most people, the history will prove to be far stranger than most fantasy plots.
The original book, and the revised edition I read several years later, put forward compelling arguments in favour of an alternative history of the established religious version propounded in canonical teaching. Although cleared of plagiarism, Dan Brown appears to have drawn heavily on much of the source material as did the authors of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'.
The authors at no point claim that their theories are fact. They make it clear that they are putting forward a hypothesis regarding what might have taken place, based on many esoteric sources as well as sources accepted to be established historical fact. The amusing part is that although it is a well researched and well written thesis, it reads more like a thriller than any fictionalised accounts that followed - 'The da Vinci Code' included.
Reading 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' led me to several other books -
- 'The Bible' (most people who claim to have read it have not - they have read sections of it, often as directed by a minister).
- 'The Nag Hamiadi Scrolls in English' (translations of the so-called Gnostic Gospels)
- 'Jesus the Man' by by Barbara Thiering (alternative theories by a biblical scholar about where and how the story of Jesus took place, based on learnings from the 'Dead Sea Scrolls').
- to name but three.
I would say that those three books, along with 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' are essential reading for anyone who wishes to read up on and understand the origins of Christianity - for most people, the history will prove to be far stranger than most fantasy plots.
December 20, 2015
I originally approached the book with the idea that even if the "history" was wonky, it will be entertaining to read. I was sorely disappointed. It was uphill all the way, especially in the middle, when you get bogged down in all those dynasties.
However, I'm giving it two stars for the chapters towards the end. The speculations in there have given the myth-lover in me have one more go at the Bible, and the enigmatic figure of the Christ.
Overall opinion? A boring book with some entertaining speculations.
However, I'm giving it two stars for the chapters towards the end. The speculations in there have given the myth-lover in me have one more go at the Bible, and the enigmatic figure of the Christ.
Overall opinion? A boring book with some entertaining speculations.
March 11, 2019
Jesus was born of a virgin, raised the dead, turned water into wine, and was resurrected after his crucifixion. OK. BUT SAYING THAT HE HAD CHILDREN IS THE MOST RIDICULOUS THING IN THE WORLD! (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
I read this book when it was first published and it's speculations have fertilized my thinking since then. Even if the thesis is wrong, the wild, richly detailed landscape you cross with it is thought-provoking and conspiratorially satisfying.
In the '90s a possible liar claimed to have fraudulently placed the priory of zion 'list' document in the French library where Baigent did his research, making Baigent's book total fiction. But why should we believe this person's claims over Baigent's? Because he said he did so?
I recommend this book for those who enjoy a fine mystery, a detailed trip through history, an appreciation for art, and who question religious dogma.
For scholarly alternate histories of Jesus I recommend: "The Nazarene Gospel Restored" by Robert Graves & Joshua Podro (yes, they agree that the Rabbi Jesus would have wed); and, "The Mythmaker" by Hyam Maccoby.
If the Holy Grail is your thing I recommend the old, anonymous QUEST FOR THE HOLY GRAIL. Powerful, sad, beautiful moments from this work still linger in my psyche, thankfully.
I read this book when it was first published and it's speculations have fertilized my thinking since then. Even if the thesis is wrong, the wild, richly detailed landscape you cross with it is thought-provoking and conspiratorially satisfying.
In the '90s a possible liar claimed to have fraudulently placed the priory of zion 'list' document in the French library where Baigent did his research, making Baigent's book total fiction. But why should we believe this person's claims over Baigent's? Because he said he did so?
I recommend this book for those who enjoy a fine mystery, a detailed trip through history, an appreciation for art, and who question religious dogma.
For scholarly alternate histories of Jesus I recommend: "The Nazarene Gospel Restored" by Robert Graves & Joshua Podro (yes, they agree that the Rabbi Jesus would have wed); and, "The Mythmaker" by Hyam Maccoby.
If the Holy Grail is your thing I recommend the old, anonymous QUEST FOR THE HOLY GRAIL. Powerful, sad, beautiful moments from this work still linger in my psyche, thankfully.
October 8, 2007
This is book is a great example of academic dishonesty. The first half of the book is very well documented, and sets the reader up for the idea that the two authors are dealing with hard facts. When the conjectures and meat of the book begin though the sources stop getting cited, and assumptions are made which have no basis except for the authors fantastical logic. (Saying things like, of course this is well documented (but where?), or setting up as a premise something that they admit is unknown, and then turn the unknown into a truth later in the book, with no basis). Not that I'm shocked by their more controversial conjectures, or find the ideas contained in this book as absurd, just that they do a grave misjustice to the readers trust in the way they present the information.
March 24, 2008
Reading this book is like slogging uphill through a mudslide - after a while you lose track of where you are, and it doesn't seem worth the effort to keep going.
April 9, 2024
One of the most controversial books of the century so far, quite enjoyed it actually... :)
August 24, 2010
Probably the oldest surviving piece of hot gossip still in circulation: Jesus had an affair with Mary Magdalene, which resulted in a child.
Members of the post-Dan-Brown generation may have trouble believing this, but I hadn't heard a single rumour before I read this book. Really!
January 2, 2026
It was the late ‘80s when I read this book, and I still had enough naivety left to not immediately dismiss it as the bs that it is. You see, it’s rather brilliant bs, pulling on just enough truth, exploiting unresolved ambiguities, and playing the well earned distrust we have in official institutions such as the Catholic Church to make this outrageous conspiracy theory sound plausible.
The conspiracy theory here advanced is that Jesus Christ married and impregnated Mary Magdalene, who then escaped to the South of France after his death, and that their child then married into what became the Merovingian dynasty of France. The Holy Grail, so asserts the book, is actually both Mary Magdalene’s womb and this sacred bloodline that proceeds from it, and those possessing this arcane knowledge have been protecting this bloodline of Christ for hundreds of generations.
While this is all classic pseudo scholarship, it makes for entertaining reading. It was clearly the inspiration for Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code (he lifted the entire premise without giving any attribution) and was used by Umberto Eco in his occult masterpiece Foucault’s Pendulum (Eco sites it within his text). So it is clever pseudo scholarship and conspiracy theory that has had a life beyond the original book. If you find such things interesting, it may be worth your while. I give it four stars for entertainment value, but only one star for veracity, rounded to “three stars I liked it even though it’s utter bullshit.”
The conspiracy theory here advanced is that Jesus Christ married and impregnated Mary Magdalene, who then escaped to the South of France after his death, and that their child then married into what became the Merovingian dynasty of France. The Holy Grail, so asserts the book, is actually both Mary Magdalene’s womb and this sacred bloodline that proceeds from it, and those possessing this arcane knowledge have been protecting this bloodline of Christ for hundreds of generations.
While this is all classic pseudo scholarship, it makes for entertaining reading. It was clearly the inspiration for Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code (he lifted the entire premise without giving any attribution) and was used by Umberto Eco in his occult masterpiece Foucault’s Pendulum (Eco sites it within his text). So it is clever pseudo scholarship and conspiracy theory that has had a life beyond the original book. If you find such things interesting, it may be worth your while. I give it four stars for entertainment value, but only one star for veracity, rounded to “three stars I liked it even though it’s utter bullshit.”
March 26, 2011
While much of the evidence in this has been debunked since it's writing, and most of the research has been called into question, this is an interesting book nonetheless, with much more depth, twists and turns than The DaVinci code, which stole many of these author's ideas. There are many concepts in this book, some are very dubious, and others seem downright plausible. If one approaches this with the right spirit; which is to say, with an open mind, but with the desire to do lots of independent research, it can become a wonderful real life detective story. At worst, you could take it as an interesting mockumentary-style story, and still have a pretty gripping tale. (there is a long stretch on geneology in the middle that lags quite a bit, but stick with it, it's worth the payoff.) At best though, it is something that will make you question what you've been told, and try to do a little independent thinking on the matter.
Read this book, absolutely, if you have any interest in religious history, but take it with a grain of salt. I hope to see someone pick these ideas up again, dust them off, and do the work that the authors didn't, giving us a real chance at looking at some of these theories honestly
Read this book, absolutely, if you have any interest in religious history, but take it with a grain of salt. I hope to see someone pick these ideas up again, dust them off, and do the work that the authors didn't, giving us a real chance at looking at some of these theories honestly
January 16, 2008
A remarkable work of fiction. Just because the authors didn't intend it to be fiction is neither here nor there. It's a thrilling romp all the same, and a gazillion times better than that wretched rip-off, The Da Vinci Code.
It's well written and extensivley researched. The conclusions that the author's draw from that research are, of course, a little on the zany side. But there's something exquisitely Indiana Jones about the whole thing. If you're a sensitive religious sort, then this probably isn't for you, as there are some seriously far out claims made in the book. However, it is actually possible to learn a lot about theology from reading this book. References to the Early Church fathers, the gnostics, the Cathars, Templars etc are plentiful, and more importantly these references usually direct the reader to original sources.
It's all thrillingly bonkers, and yet, after reading it, you'll still feel a might sad that the whole thing turned out to be a load of old tosh written by some aged school boys who, unwittingly, got themselves royally punk'd by another aged school boy by the name of Pierre Plantard.
I thought it was a lot of fun.
It's well written and extensivley researched. The conclusions that the author's draw from that research are, of course, a little on the zany side. But there's something exquisitely Indiana Jones about the whole thing. If you're a sensitive religious sort, then this probably isn't for you, as there are some seriously far out claims made in the book. However, it is actually possible to learn a lot about theology from reading this book. References to the Early Church fathers, the gnostics, the Cathars, Templars etc are plentiful, and more importantly these references usually direct the reader to original sources.
It's all thrillingly bonkers, and yet, after reading it, you'll still feel a might sad that the whole thing turned out to be a load of old tosh written by some aged school boys who, unwittingly, got themselves royally punk'd by another aged school boy by the name of Pierre Plantard.
I thought it was a lot of fun.
Want to read
January 16, 2012Speculation, yes. But even the bible contains much speculation (yes, that is my opinion and you don't need to agree with me, that is fine and I am perfectly ok with that). The basis for my opinion is as follows. The new testament wasn't even written until 60 yrs after Jesus' death, by people who most likely never heard him speak. It is really difficult to guess what sort of motives they may have had or wether they were trying very hard to shape the New Testament stories according to the old testament prophecies. Also, the council of Nicea picked and chose what documents could be a part of the New Testament in 325 CE. Would we choose the same books today? In addition, countless re-transcribings of the sacred texts and translations have occurred resulting in uncountable mis-translations and errors.
Did you know:
Mary Magdalene was NOT ever called a prostitute in the bible?
In 1969 the Catholic church issued a Papal Bull recanting the claim they had earlier made that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. That was news to me. And I was never even Catholic.
Jesus, as a rabbi, would have been EXPECTED to be married and have children according to Judaic custom. Of course this is by no means proof that he did marry and have children, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.
So of course this book is probably 90% speculation. But I stand by my opinion, that lots of things are speculation.
I heard about this book from a friend in church during our Unitarian Universalist bible study group. When I get the time I look forward to reading it.
----------------------------
Excerpt from wikipedia article on Mary Magdalene:
Pope Gregory the Great's homily on Luke's gospel dated 14 September 591 first suggested that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute: "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark. And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices? ... It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts."(homily XXXIII)[14]
In 1969 the Vatican, without commenting on Pope Gregory's reasoning,[15] implicitly rejected it by separating Luke's sinful woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdala via the Roman Missal.[16]
This identification of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute was followed by many writers and artists until the 20th century. Even today it is promulgated by some secular and occasional Christian groups. It is reflected in Martin Scorsese's film adaptation of Nikos Kazantzakis's novel The Last Temptation of Christ, in José Saramago's The Gospel According to Jesus Christ, Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical Jesus Christ Superstar, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, Jean-Claude La Marre's Color of the Cross and Hal Hartley's The Book of Life.
It was because of this association of Mary as a prostitute that she became the patroness of "wayward women", and "Magdalene houses" became established to help save women from prostitution.[17]
-----------------------------
Did you know:
Mary Magdalene was NOT ever called a prostitute in the bible?
In 1969 the Catholic church issued a Papal Bull recanting the claim they had earlier made that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. That was news to me. And I was never even Catholic.
Jesus, as a rabbi, would have been EXPECTED to be married and have children according to Judaic custom. Of course this is by no means proof that he did marry and have children, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.
So of course this book is probably 90% speculation. But I stand by my opinion, that lots of things are speculation.
I heard about this book from a friend in church during our Unitarian Universalist bible study group. When I get the time I look forward to reading it.
----------------------------
Excerpt from wikipedia article on Mary Magdalene:
Pope Gregory the Great's homily on Luke's gospel dated 14 September 591 first suggested that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute: "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark. And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices? ... It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts."(homily XXXIII)[14]
In 1969 the Vatican, without commenting on Pope Gregory's reasoning,[15] implicitly rejected it by separating Luke's sinful woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdala via the Roman Missal.[16]
This identification of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute was followed by many writers and artists until the 20th century. Even today it is promulgated by some secular and occasional Christian groups. It is reflected in Martin Scorsese's film adaptation of Nikos Kazantzakis's novel The Last Temptation of Christ, in José Saramago's The Gospel According to Jesus Christ, Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical Jesus Christ Superstar, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, Jean-Claude La Marre's Color of the Cross and Hal Hartley's The Book of Life.
It was because of this association of Mary as a prostitute that she became the patroness of "wayward women", and "Magdalene houses" became established to help save women from prostitution.[17]
-----------------------------
September 8, 2012
ما أروع هذا الكتاب،، واحد من تلك الكتب الشاملة العميقة،، الدسمة،، والوافية
يتناول الكتاب بالتفصيل تاريخ (فرسان الهيكل) و (دير صهيون) وماضيهم وجذورهم وحُكمهم وملوكهم وحروبهم وطوائفهم وكيفية انبثاق (الماسونية) عنهم،، وقد يصدمنا الكتاب عندما يلفت انتباهنا إلى أصولهم وتطورهم بين الميروفيون إلى الاسبارطيون إلى شكلهم الحالي.. هناك الكثير من المعلومات التي يلزم للقارئ أن يكون لديه خلفية متينة عنها،، مثل تاريخ فرنسا الذي ورد بتركيز كبير على طول الكتاب،، وكان مهماً معرفته لتتبع سير الأحداث.. وتحدث الكتاب عن الجماعات الصهيونية المختلفة والدينية وعن بعض اللوحات الفنية والكتب والأدب والمسرحيات وربطها بموضوع الكتاب،، كما أورد الحديث عن أساطيرهم أهمها (أسطورة شمشون الجبار) ومدى تأثيرها على معتقداتهم وهيئاتهم وقواهم حتى يومنا هذا
كل صفحة من الكتاب تحمل الأسرار والمفاجآت.. لكن الكتاب في النهاية هو مجرد افتراضات من الكاتب اجتهد كثيراً ليبنيها على الأسس المنطقية؛ فلم ترد معلومة مجردة إلا وتم الاستدلال عليها تاريخياً ومنطقياً لكن ليس الكثير لنعتمد عليه فالتاريخ لديهم مزور في كثير من مواضعه وكتبهم المقدسة قد حُرّفت،، فيبقى رأي القارئ هو المطلوب..
بالنسبة لترجمة الكتاب،، فإنني أجد أنها جيدة لكن يلزمها التحسينات في بعض المواضع
العنوان كان موفقاً؛ فلم يأت الكتاب على ذكر حقيقة الكأس المقدسة إلا في الفصول الأخيرة من الكتاب،، فالكتاب بمعظمه وضع ليلقي الضوء لاقتفاء أثر الدم المقدس أو سلالة المسيح.. البحث المتعمّق في موضوع صلب المسيح أثار استنكاري،، العديد من المسيحيين حالياً يشككون في هذا الموضوع،، وقد عرض الكاتب تناقضات وردت في العهد الجديد ثم قام بعمل تحليل يقارب المنطقية لكنه ليس الصحيح،، فلو أنهم يؤمنون بما ورد في القرآن لكان هذا يغنيهم عن وجع الرأس!.. أعجبتني انفتاحية الكاتب وإيراده لاستشهادات من القرآن والكتب المقدسة على اختلافها..
هو كتاب من الواضح جداً أنه قد بُذل مجهود كبير لوضعه
يتناول الكتاب بالتفصيل تاريخ (فرسان الهيكل) و (دير صهيون) وماضيهم وجذورهم وحُكمهم وملوكهم وحروبهم وطوائفهم وكيفية انبثاق (الماسونية) عنهم،، وقد يصدمنا الكتاب عندما يلفت انتباهنا إلى أصولهم وتطورهم بين الميروفيون إلى الاسبارطيون إلى شكلهم الحالي.. هناك الكثير من المعلومات التي يلزم للقارئ أن يكون لديه خلفية متينة عنها،، مثل تاريخ فرنسا الذي ورد بتركيز كبير على طول الكتاب،، وكان مهماً معرفته لتتبع سير الأحداث.. وتحدث الكتاب عن الجماعات الصهيونية المختلفة والدينية وعن بعض اللوحات الفنية والكتب والأدب والمسرحيات وربطها بموضوع الكتاب،، كما أورد الحديث عن أساطيرهم أهمها (أسطورة شمشون الجبار) ومدى تأثيرها على معتقداتهم وهيئاتهم وقواهم حتى يومنا هذا
كل صفحة من الكتاب تحمل الأسرار والمفاجآت.. لكن الكتاب في النهاية هو مجرد افتراضات من الكاتب اجتهد كثيراً ليبنيها على الأسس المنطقية؛ فلم ترد معلومة مجردة إلا وتم الاستدلال عليها تاريخياً ومنطقياً لكن ليس الكثير لنعتمد عليه فالتاريخ لديهم مزور في كثير من مواضعه وكتبهم المقدسة قد حُرّفت،، فيبقى رأي القارئ هو المطلوب..
بالنسبة لترجمة الكتاب،، فإنني أجد أنها جيدة لكن يلزمها التحسينات في بعض المواضع
العنوان كان موفقاً؛ فلم يأت الكتاب على ذكر حقيقة الكأس المقدسة إلا في الفصول الأخيرة من الكتاب،، فالكتاب بمعظمه وضع ليلقي الضوء لاقتفاء أثر الدم المقدس أو سلالة المسيح.. البحث المتعمّق في موضوع صلب المسيح أثار استنكاري،، العديد من المسيحيين حالياً يشككون في هذا الموضوع،، وقد عرض الكاتب تناقضات وردت في العهد الجديد ثم قام بعمل تحليل يقارب المنطقية لكنه ليس الصحيح،، فلو أنهم يؤمنون بما ورد في القرآن لكان هذا يغنيهم عن وجع الرأس!.. أعجبتني انفتاحية الكاتب وإيراده لاستشهادات من القرآن والكتب المقدسة على اختلافها..
هو كتاب من الواضح جداً أنه قد بُذل مجهود كبير لوضعه
October 28, 2020
This is the book which spawned Brown's 'DaVinci Code', the mediocre movie based on it and innumerable spin-offs in various media. Though the three authors of it had a point when they sued Brown for plagiarism, they lost the case because while it is illegal to steal text, it is quite all right to steal ideas--something Brown did extensively.
I am not qualified to comment on events pertaining to the authors' investigations in France. If they're telling it straight (and a review of Baigent's other publications does give one pause...), then it does seem that they demonstrate that some people have for quite a long while believed that Jesus' bloodline extended through the Merovingian line in the early middle ages and to the present time--a belief which explains quite a lot about the movie, 'Matrix II'. To the authors' credit, they do ask the obvious: If indeed a CPA in Europe today is actually descended from Jesus--so what? Still, about this occult knowledge and about the Templars and Priory of Sion's supposed keeping of it, I am not qualified to opine.
What I can say is that the authors do pick up on some reputable speculation about such matters as Jesus' survival, his intimacy with Mary of Magdala and the possibility that they had a child who may have gone to what we today think of as southern France with his mother. There are textual traditions, ancient ones, which suggest such possibilities. Unfortunately, none of the authors are scholars in the fields they discuss in this regard and their treatment of the evidence is rather slipshod.
Whatever. The book is a fun read, much of it reading like a mystery. If it inspires some readers to investigate further, studying the early history of the Church, then it's done a service.
I am not qualified to comment on events pertaining to the authors' investigations in France. If they're telling it straight (and a review of Baigent's other publications does give one pause...), then it does seem that they demonstrate that some people have for quite a long while believed that Jesus' bloodline extended through the Merovingian line in the early middle ages and to the present time--a belief which explains quite a lot about the movie, 'Matrix II'. To the authors' credit, they do ask the obvious: If indeed a CPA in Europe today is actually descended from Jesus--so what? Still, about this occult knowledge and about the Templars and Priory of Sion's supposed keeping of it, I am not qualified to opine.
What I can say is that the authors do pick up on some reputable speculation about such matters as Jesus' survival, his intimacy with Mary of Magdala and the possibility that they had a child who may have gone to what we today think of as southern France with his mother. There are textual traditions, ancient ones, which suggest such possibilities. Unfortunately, none of the authors are scholars in the fields they discuss in this regard and their treatment of the evidence is rather slipshod.
Whatever. The book is a fun read, much of it reading like a mystery. If it inspires some readers to investigate further, studying the early history of the Church, then it's done a service.
May 16, 2013
The book Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a book that presents many points of evidence showing fallacies in the Christian religion. It mainly delves into the depths of the secrets of the Knights Templar and the order of Sion, who allegedly created and later broke off from the Knights Templar. "Could 'ET IN ARCADIA EGO' also perhaps be an anagram? Could the verb have been omitted so that the inscription would consist only of certain precise letters?" (Baigent, 46). The authors use mechanics like this to make the reader think more on the subject and keep them engaged, which I really liked.
One of the features I enjoyed the most is how it's set up. There's a table of contents in the beginning splitting the book into parts, chapters, and sections. The titles of each piece is descriptive enough to let you know exactly what's contained. Some of them, such as "The Grail and Cabalism" catch your eye and make you want to know what's inside. The book follows a loose chronological structure depicting how their research and findings proceeded.
Overall, the book is very controversial and also very interesting. While most books that argue against a group or idea are merely propaganda, this book backs up all of its claims and ideas with facts and primary sources of evidence. I also applaud the efforts of the authors because of how much time had to go into researching this. Some of the sources they had took them months to locate and acquire.
One of the features I enjoyed the most is how it's set up. There's a table of contents in the beginning splitting the book into parts, chapters, and sections. The titles of each piece is descriptive enough to let you know exactly what's contained. Some of them, such as "The Grail and Cabalism" catch your eye and make you want to know what's inside. The book follows a loose chronological structure depicting how their research and findings proceeded.
Overall, the book is very controversial and also very interesting. While most books that argue against a group or idea are merely propaganda, this book backs up all of its claims and ideas with facts and primary sources of evidence. I also applaud the efforts of the authors because of how much time had to go into researching this. Some of the sources they had took them months to locate and acquire.
October 20, 2008
Alrighty....Here's another tin foil hat conspiracy book. Holy Blood Holy Grail was dragged into English court as part of the authors complaint of plagiarism against Dan Brown's The Manet Code...HAHAHA..Da Vinci.My joke and the lawsuit and the book are all similar to Dan Brown's Oeuvre by being boring and poorly written. That might have been Leigh and Baigent's best argument.
What offends me about this book is that it takes something that is fundamentally interesting (the history of the gospels, the history of the city-state politics of the times of the crusades) and makes it boring and dumb. Pierre Plantard...the basis for this book, in the hope of
squeezing yet another Dollar or Franc or Euro out of his fraud...has admitted(that we needed an admission) that the Priory documents were just a goof by irrelevant people exploiting the interest in crappy pulp fiction.
If you like/believe things like "there were no facts, but instead the shape of something that might be trying to call it's attention or form a condition where the facts..."
You'll Love this book.
What offends me about this book is that it takes something that is fundamentally interesting (the history of the gospels, the history of the city-state politics of the times of the crusades) and makes it boring and dumb. Pierre Plantard...the basis for this book, in the hope of
squeezing yet another Dollar or Franc or Euro out of his fraud...has admitted(that we needed an admission) that the Priory documents were just a goof by irrelevant people exploiting the interest in crappy pulp fiction.
If you like/believe things like "there were no facts, but instead the shape of something that might be trying to call it's attention or form a condition where the facts..."
You'll Love this book.
February 6, 2009
I wasn't suprised at all that the authors of this book sued Dan Brown over the DaVinci Code. He could have had this book open and used whole sections of it. The plot of this book actually follows the DaVinci Code in many aspects. What I enjoyed about this book is the research. It does take a few chances, and it clearly states that it is speculative history, but it made me see the Gospels in a whole other way. I can't recommend it enough.
December 15, 2016
This is possibly one of the most successful conspiracy-theory books ever written, at least among those published and marketed as “non-fiction.” There are reasons for this. It is well-written, engaging, relatively even in tone, and accessible to most readers. Unlike many, especially those which deal in “occult” theories of history, the authors do not carry an obvious commitment to one or another group’s version of the “truth” that will drive away readers who do not share their beliefs. And, although they do make digs at mainstream scholarship and the Catholic Church, they avoid direct appeals to paranoia or fear-mongering. In fact, in this narrative the “secret conspiracy” turns out to be the good guys.
None of which is to say that I found the argument presented here even remotely convincing. Most of the theory presented is based, as the authors readily admit, on an obscure collection of typewritten documents put into archives in France around 1956, which claim to be the records of a group that has existed for centuries, combined with a series of speculations that weren’t even endorsed by the originator of those documents (Pierre Plantard). Each new speculation is based upon highly dubious assumptions and frequently ignores basic facts, even after these have been laid out in the text. Still, the tone of writing is so reasonable, and the chain of logic so seemingly inevitable, that one can miss the leaps or forget about them within a few pages and find oneself drawn along to say, up to a point, at least, “well, this seems possible even if it’s not certain.”
It’s only when they turn to something the reader is intimately familiar with that the inaccuracies and deliberate distortions become obvious. Since the text covers such a huge range of history, theology, philosophy, and other fields, it is unlikely that any one person will even be able to critique the whole thing adequately, but for me the structure collapsed when they tried to bring in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” claiming that it was not an intentionally anti-Semitic text, but rather a genuine set of minutes of one of the conspiracy’s meetings. As an example of how slickly they twist the truth, they do this only a page or two after giving the true story of the “Protocols” (that it was lifted from an anti-Semitic novel and held up as a true document), but simply conveniently ignore the original source as they perform their bizarre intentional mis-reading of a document they know most of their audience is unfamiliar with.
In 2003, novelist Dan Brown based “The Da Vinci Code” on this book, giving its thesis a new lease on life, and no doubt vastly boosting sales. Still, the authors attempted to sue Brown for plagiarism. The beauty of this is that his defense – that he had independently reached the same conclusions through examining the same original source documents – could only have been countered had the authors been willing to admit that their book, also, was fiction. Losing the case therefore was a brilliant moment of poetic justice for their fraud. What poetic justice Dan Brown will face for his lies has yet to be seen.
None of which is to say that I found the argument presented here even remotely convincing. Most of the theory presented is based, as the authors readily admit, on an obscure collection of typewritten documents put into archives in France around 1956, which claim to be the records of a group that has existed for centuries, combined with a series of speculations that weren’t even endorsed by the originator of those documents (Pierre Plantard). Each new speculation is based upon highly dubious assumptions and frequently ignores basic facts, even after these have been laid out in the text. Still, the tone of writing is so reasonable, and the chain of logic so seemingly inevitable, that one can miss the leaps or forget about them within a few pages and find oneself drawn along to say, up to a point, at least, “well, this seems possible even if it’s not certain.”
It’s only when they turn to something the reader is intimately familiar with that the inaccuracies and deliberate distortions become obvious. Since the text covers such a huge range of history, theology, philosophy, and other fields, it is unlikely that any one person will even be able to critique the whole thing adequately, but for me the structure collapsed when they tried to bring in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” claiming that it was not an intentionally anti-Semitic text, but rather a genuine set of minutes of one of the conspiracy’s meetings. As an example of how slickly they twist the truth, they do this only a page or two after giving the true story of the “Protocols” (that it was lifted from an anti-Semitic novel and held up as a true document), but simply conveniently ignore the original source as they perform their bizarre intentional mis-reading of a document they know most of their audience is unfamiliar with.
In 2003, novelist Dan Brown based “The Da Vinci Code” on this book, giving its thesis a new lease on life, and no doubt vastly boosting sales. Still, the authors attempted to sue Brown for plagiarism. The beauty of this is that his defense – that he had independently reached the same conclusions through examining the same original source documents – could only have been countered had the authors been willing to admit that their book, also, was fiction. Losing the case therefore was a brilliant moment of poetic justice for their fraud. What poetic justice Dan Brown will face for his lies has yet to be seen.
December 10, 2010
This book should be under fiction instead of religion, as the conspiracy put forth in it is so obviously a bunch of hookum that anyone who actually reads the book should be able to see that their sole source is playing them for reasons that never become clear. This is the sort of book that brings out the worst sort of conspiracy nuts -- those who will believe it because they want it to be true, not because there is actual proof or overwhelming evidence that it true. It is worth reading ONLY if you want to know where Dan Brown found his big "secret" that made _The DaVinci Code_ so upsetting to so many people -- that Jesus and Mary Magdalene may have been married & had at least 1 child is a very old legend that is at the core of this book and of Brown's much-maligned work of fiction. In fact, the authors of this book sued Brown for copyright infringement or plaigarism because their theory makes up such a big part of his book; they lost because the courts said if it was true (as these authors claim), you can not copyright truth. They might have had a better case if they had marketed this as the fiction it is, but then it would not still be in print after all these years, appealing to new generations of conspiracy nuts. (I happen to believe there are conspiracies, just not this one.)
August 18, 2013
شيفرة دافنشي هي ما اعادت إثارته، إلى درجة ان ناشري الكتاب قاضوا ناشري دافنشي وبراون بتهمة السرقة الأدبية!
إذا وجبت المقارنة فسأصوت للتسلية في الشيفرة، اما في هذا الكتاب الذي أريد له ان يظهر بلبوس علمي فلا يمكن الركون إليه تحت اي منطق، مجرد نسج لاحتمالات متتالية لاقناعك بنتيجة!
لا مشكلة في مناقشة المسلمات الدينية إذا أخضعناها للمنطق البحثي طالما لا نعاني من سيطرة الأفكار المسبقة، لكن ما هو هنا مشروع طويل وممل من حياكة الاحداث التاريخية وربطها عبر أسلاك واهية ليصل بنا إلى نتيجة...
العائلات الأساسية في اوروبا ومن ثم في العالم الجديد جميعها ذات جذور يهودية
لا يوجد شيء اسمه المسيحية، بل حركة ملكية يهودية مضطهدة تبحث عن العرش المفقود
الفجر القادم، النظام العالمي الجديد، المستقبل المبهر، عصر الأسرار .. آتية لا محالة حين تعتلي سلالة "ملك إسرائيل"- "المسيح" عرش هذا العالم
من جانب آخر يمكن تقديم بعض التقدير لعروض شاذة في جماليتها لمفاصل في التاريخ والتي لا بد من الاعتراف ان بعض تحليلاتها تمتلك بعضا من المنطق..
إذا وجبت المقارنة فسأصوت للتسلية في الشيفرة، اما في هذا الكتاب الذي أريد له ان يظهر بلبوس علمي فلا يمكن الركون إليه تحت اي منطق، مجرد نسج لاحتمالات متتالية لاقناعك بنتيجة!
لا مشكلة في مناقشة المسلمات الدينية إذا أخضعناها للمنطق البحثي طالما لا نعاني من سيطرة الأفكار المسبقة، لكن ما هو هنا مشروع طويل وممل من حياكة الاحداث التاريخية وربطها عبر أسلاك واهية ليصل بنا إلى نتيجة...
العائلات الأساسية في اوروبا ومن ثم في العالم الجديد جميعها ذات جذور يهودية
لا يوجد شيء اسمه المسيحية، بل حركة ملكية يهودية مضطهدة تبحث عن العرش المفقود
الفجر القادم، النظام العالمي الجديد، المستقبل المبهر، عصر الأسرار .. آتية لا محالة حين تعتلي سلالة "ملك إسرائيل"- "المسيح" عرش هذا العالم
من جانب آخر يمكن تقديم بعض التقدير لعروض شاذة في جماليتها لمفاصل في التاريخ والتي لا بد من الاعتراف ان بعض تحليلاتها تمتلك بعضا من المنطق..
February 28, 2018
I remember reading this in 1983 and being quite shocked about it at the time. Later it became the basis for Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code (2003) whether he acknowledged that or not.
Saying goodbye to several dozen books due to a water damage incident and I thought I'd write at least a little memorial to each of them and why I kept them around.
Saying goodbye to several dozen books due to a water damage incident and I thought I'd write at least a little memorial to each of them and why I kept them around.
September 24, 2023
Pirmą kartą gan ilgai sėdėjau užvertus knygos puslapį ir mąsčiau: "Tai ką aš čia perskaičiau?" Atsakau - nežinau. Ar komercinės sėkmės paieška, ar rimta istorinė studija? Tema, kuri mane domino, bet čia: daug gan nestruktūrinės informacijos, bet tyrinėtojai dirbo 10 metų; daugoka sąmokslo teorijų ir nutylėjimų, bet gal tuo paslaptingumu ši tema ir žavi?
April 4, 2020
Классика спекулятивной литературы, читана давно, когда и этой сети не было в помине. А книжка эта уже была и будила фантазию будь здоров. Бесценное произведение.
December 18, 2025
I first read this book as a teenager and thought it was the coolest thing ever, but after re-reading it as an adult ... it really didn’t age well.
While re-reading it, I had my first good laugh when Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln 1) attribute Godefroy de Bouillon selling most of his property before setting out on the First Crusade to him knowing beforehand that he’d be made king of Jerusalem from the beginning and 2) state that he was the only one to do this. Simply researching the First Crusaders would show that all of the would-be Crusaders had to sell or mortgage their lands and castles before setting out, even much wealthier nobles like Raymond IV of Toulouse, Hugues de Vermandois, and Robert Curthose of Normandy. This is because aristocrats of the time were rich in land, not currency, so mortgaging their property and taking out loans before pilgrimages or war was a given. The authors also posit a close relationship between Godefroy de Bouillon and Matilde of Tuscany, his maternal uncle’s wife, when the historical record is pretty clear that the two of them hated each other, due to inheritance disputes that had arisen when said uncle (Godefroy III of Lower Lorraine) was assassinated in 1076.
Their handling of history from the Early Middle Ages is no better. In a section about Dagobert II, they attribute a section about Gregory of Tours’ History of the Franks as a criticism of Dagobert when the actual target was Chilperic I of Neustria, an earlier Merovingian king. Somehow, Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln failed to notice that Gregory of Tours couldn’t have been talking about Dagobert II in that section because Gregory died around 50 years before Dagobert’s birth. The authors also do not seem to be aware that virtually everyone from the Romans onward claimed Trojan ancestry (because they, rather understandably, found Hector and the Trojans in the Iliad more sympathetic than Agamemnon and the Mycenaeans), that counthood was not hereditary during the early Carolingian era, or that the Visigoth kings of Spain did not have hereditary kingship.
Central to Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln’s theory is established mostly on the basis that medieval romances claimed that Godefroy de Bouillon’s grandfather was Lohengrin the Swan Knight, son of Percival. Regardless of the fact that medieval romances should not be taken as historical fact (historically, Godefroy de Bouillon’s actual grandfathers were Eustache I of Boulogne and Godefroid II of Lower Lorraine), Naissance du Chevalier au Cygne actually names Godefroi’s maternal grandfather as Helias the Swan Knight, son of Orient de l’Islefort. This is because the legend of the Swan Knight was originally a separate story that was later folded into Arthurian legends by Wolfram von Eschenbach. It was Wolfram who gave the Swan Knight the name Lohengrin and made him the son of Percival. Despite their attachment to the myth of Ide of Lorraine’s descent from the Swan Knight, they mostly posit that instead that her husband, Eustache II of Boulogne, was the descendant of Dagobert II and thus, of Jesus as well. This makes their sudden shift to interest in the House of Lorraine all the stranger, because Eustache was only connected to the Duchy of Lorraine through his marriage to Ide. One of his sons, Godefroy, eventually succeeded to the Duchy, but he fathered no children so his claims died with him. Godefroy’s older brother, Eustache III, did have a daughter, Mathilde, but none of Mathilde of Boulogne’s descendants made any claims to the duchy of Lorraine and they only intermarried once with the House of Metz, on account of Mathilde’s granddaughter, Marie I of Boulogne, being abducted by and forcibly married to Mathieu of Alsace, a paternal grandson of Thierry II of Lorraine. Later on, Mathilde’s great-granddaughter, Adelheid of Brabant, married the count of Auvergne and her descendants include Caterina de’ Medici and the viscounts of Turenne. The authors’ second-rate research, however, means that they don’t seem aware that the viscounts of Turenne (who they attempt to bring into their conspiracy) were in fact descendants of Godefroy de Bouillon’s older brother. I know genealogical research wasn’t as easy in the 1980s as it is today, but come on.
Returning to the subject of Eustache I of Boulogne, however, the authors’ make the laughable claim of him being the son of someone named Hugues de Plantard, he was actually the son of Baudouin II of Boulogne and a descendant of Baudouin Iron Arm of Flanders and the Carolingian princess, Judith of France. The Ernicule of Boulogne they misidentify as Eustache I of Boulogne’s stepfather is probably a garbled translation on their part of Enguerrand I of Ponthieu who married Eustache’s mother, Adelina of Holland, after killing his father in battle. For some reason, though, the family tree in this book further misidentifies Eustache’s mother as Agnes and claims she was the daughter of Eustache, count of Jumièges, a baffling error because there was no such title as “count of Jumièges”; Jumièges was instead the property of a Benedictine Abbey that was later destroyed during the French Revolution. Said family tree also accidentally omits that Saint Ide of Lorraine was the niece of Pope Stephen IX and daughter of Godefroy the Bearded of Lorraine and that Godefroy the Bearded’s second wife, Beatrice of Bar, was also his third cousin and gives Godefroy and Pope Stephen a fictitious sister named Beatrice who married Hugues de Plantard. In reality, Stephen and Godefroy did have three sisters (Regelinde, Ode and Mathilde), but none was named Beatrice.
Upon reaching the Late Middle Ages, Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln try to posit that Rene d’Anjou alone was the cause of the Renaissance with nary a mention of Petrarch, Coluccio Salutati, or Manuel Chrysoloras, either because the authors don’t know of them or to make their flimsy thesis seem stronger than it actually is. I had another good laugh, though, when the authors mistakenly conflated Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne, duc de Bouillon, with his youngest son, Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne, vicomte de Turenne, and then try to hint about a family link between the two Henris and Godefroy de Bouillon because the elder Henri held the title duc de Bouillon. In reality, how Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne came about that title is no mystery: he married Charlotte de La Marck, duchess of Bouillon. Charlotte’s family came about the title after Henri II of France officially bestowed it on her grandfather, Robert IV de La Marck, though the de La Marck family had first claimed lordship of Bouillon after Guillaume de La Marck assassinated Louis de Bourbon, Bishop of Liège (previous holder of the title) in 1482. That noble families might go extinct and titles be bestowed on unrelated families is a concept foreign to the authors, which is probably why they try to conflate the House of Ardennes-Verdun with the House of Metz simply because both held the title duke of Lorraine. It is indeed possible that the two were related (the wife of the founder of the House of Metz may have been one of the daughters of Thierry I, Duke of Upper Lorraine), but the authors don't seem aware at all that the House of Ardennes-Verdun became extinct in 1076 with the assassination of Godefroy III of Lower Lorraine. This, however, is probably due to the shoddy genealogical research that I complained of earlier.
In terms of religious content, Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln have trouble understanding the difference between Gnosticism and Arianism and don’t really understand the religious doctrines of either. They claim that Arianism is the belief that Jesus Christ was mortal when it’s actually the belief that God the Son was created after God the Father, and seem to think that Gnosticism was the same thing as believing that Jesus Christ was a mortal prophet. In reality, the Gnostics posited Jesus Christ as entirely divine and that his mortal form was nothing more than an illusion. This is because the Gnostics generally seem to believed that the material matter was a creation of an evil (or at least flawed) demiurge and that Jesus was sent by the true God to free mortals from the material world. This why the Gnostics claimed that Jesus wasn’t really crucified, but Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln either don’t understand this or they ignore it because it doesn’t fit with their thesis. Likewise, they're positing of the Cathars' being guardians of the secret of Jesus' bloodline makes little sense because the idea of Jesus fathering children would have been far more offensive to Cathar beliefs than Catholic ones. This is because, like the Gnostics, the Cathars also believed that Jesus had never actually taken human form and furthermore, their view of sex and marriage was so negative that it made Catholic theologians of the time look like advocates of free love by comparison. Bizarrely, the authors’ do comment on the Cathars’ disapproval of reproduction, but then fail to note how that doesn’t lend itself well to the notion of them guarding the secret of Jesus fathering children. Either they didn’t think this one through or they threw it the Cathars to make their insubstantial theories seem stronger than they actually are, because they happened to be from around the same general geographical location as Rennes-le-Château.
Overall, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is a muddled mess . Upon re-reading it, I noticed Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln can’t seem to make up their minds if the Grail bloodline flowed from Eustache II of Boulogne or Ide of Lorraine, so they attempt to do both at once and it makes about as much sense as you’d expect. They jump around from Godefroy de Bouillon to the Cathars to the Knights Templar to René d’Anjou and Jeanne d’Arc to the Guises and the Stewarts to the Rosicrucians without fully explaining what the continuity between these things is supposed to be. This is probably because the Priory documents forged by Pierre Plantard and Gérard de Sède themselves don’t make a lot of sense, either. When coming up with leaders of their fictitious organization, Plantard and Sède simply picked names that sounded impressive rather than ones that had any kind of religious and philosophical continuity. Ironically, the conspiracy theory the authors’ posit could have made slightly more sense if they’d done more research. If, for instance, they had actually researched the family trees of the Counts of Boulogne and Dukes of Lorraine, they might have noticed that the Chrétien de Troyes’ romance about the Holy Grail was dedicated to Philippe I, count of Flanders, who was related to the counts of Boulogne, dukes of Lorraine, and counts of Anjou. Now, I’m not saying this would be a great conspiracy theory, much less a true one, but it would make slightly more sense.
While re-reading it, I had my first good laugh when Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln 1) attribute Godefroy de Bouillon selling most of his property before setting out on the First Crusade to him knowing beforehand that he’d be made king of Jerusalem from the beginning and 2) state that he was the only one to do this. Simply researching the First Crusaders would show that all of the would-be Crusaders had to sell or mortgage their lands and castles before setting out, even much wealthier nobles like Raymond IV of Toulouse, Hugues de Vermandois, and Robert Curthose of Normandy. This is because aristocrats of the time were rich in land, not currency, so mortgaging their property and taking out loans before pilgrimages or war was a given. The authors also posit a close relationship between Godefroy de Bouillon and Matilde of Tuscany, his maternal uncle’s wife, when the historical record is pretty clear that the two of them hated each other, due to inheritance disputes that had arisen when said uncle (Godefroy III of Lower Lorraine) was assassinated in 1076.
Their handling of history from the Early Middle Ages is no better. In a section about Dagobert II, they attribute a section about Gregory of Tours’ History of the Franks as a criticism of Dagobert when the actual target was Chilperic I of Neustria, an earlier Merovingian king. Somehow, Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln failed to notice that Gregory of Tours couldn’t have been talking about Dagobert II in that section because Gregory died around 50 years before Dagobert’s birth. The authors also do not seem to be aware that virtually everyone from the Romans onward claimed Trojan ancestry (because they, rather understandably, found Hector and the Trojans in the Iliad more sympathetic than Agamemnon and the Mycenaeans), that counthood was not hereditary during the early Carolingian era, or that the Visigoth kings of Spain did not have hereditary kingship.
Central to Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln’s theory is established mostly on the basis that medieval romances claimed that Godefroy de Bouillon’s grandfather was Lohengrin the Swan Knight, son of Percival. Regardless of the fact that medieval romances should not be taken as historical fact (historically, Godefroy de Bouillon’s actual grandfathers were Eustache I of Boulogne and Godefroid II of Lower Lorraine), Naissance du Chevalier au Cygne actually names Godefroi’s maternal grandfather as Helias the Swan Knight, son of Orient de l’Islefort. This is because the legend of the Swan Knight was originally a separate story that was later folded into Arthurian legends by Wolfram von Eschenbach. It was Wolfram who gave the Swan Knight the name Lohengrin and made him the son of Percival. Despite their attachment to the myth of Ide of Lorraine’s descent from the Swan Knight, they mostly posit that instead that her husband, Eustache II of Boulogne, was the descendant of Dagobert II and thus, of Jesus as well. This makes their sudden shift to interest in the House of Lorraine all the stranger, because Eustache was only connected to the Duchy of Lorraine through his marriage to Ide. One of his sons, Godefroy, eventually succeeded to the Duchy, but he fathered no children so his claims died with him. Godefroy’s older brother, Eustache III, did have a daughter, Mathilde, but none of Mathilde of Boulogne’s descendants made any claims to the duchy of Lorraine and they only intermarried once with the House of Metz, on account of Mathilde’s granddaughter, Marie I of Boulogne, being abducted by and forcibly married to Mathieu of Alsace, a paternal grandson of Thierry II of Lorraine. Later on, Mathilde’s great-granddaughter, Adelheid of Brabant, married the count of Auvergne and her descendants include Caterina de’ Medici and the viscounts of Turenne. The authors’ second-rate research, however, means that they don’t seem aware that the viscounts of Turenne (who they attempt to bring into their conspiracy) were in fact descendants of Godefroy de Bouillon’s older brother. I know genealogical research wasn’t as easy in the 1980s as it is today, but come on.
Returning to the subject of Eustache I of Boulogne, however, the authors’ make the laughable claim of him being the son of someone named Hugues de Plantard, he was actually the son of Baudouin II of Boulogne and a descendant of Baudouin Iron Arm of Flanders and the Carolingian princess, Judith of France. The Ernicule of Boulogne they misidentify as Eustache I of Boulogne’s stepfather is probably a garbled translation on their part of Enguerrand I of Ponthieu who married Eustache’s mother, Adelina of Holland, after killing his father in battle. For some reason, though, the family tree in this book further misidentifies Eustache’s mother as Agnes and claims she was the daughter of Eustache, count of Jumièges, a baffling error because there was no such title as “count of Jumièges”; Jumièges was instead the property of a Benedictine Abbey that was later destroyed during the French Revolution. Said family tree also accidentally omits that Saint Ide of Lorraine was the niece of Pope Stephen IX and daughter of Godefroy the Bearded of Lorraine and that Godefroy the Bearded’s second wife, Beatrice of Bar, was also his third cousin and gives Godefroy and Pope Stephen a fictitious sister named Beatrice who married Hugues de Plantard. In reality, Stephen and Godefroy did have three sisters (Regelinde, Ode and Mathilde), but none was named Beatrice.
Upon reaching the Late Middle Ages, Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln try to posit that Rene d’Anjou alone was the cause of the Renaissance with nary a mention of Petrarch, Coluccio Salutati, or Manuel Chrysoloras, either because the authors don’t know of them or to make their flimsy thesis seem stronger than it actually is. I had another good laugh, though, when the authors mistakenly conflated Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne, duc de Bouillon, with his youngest son, Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne, vicomte de Turenne, and then try to hint about a family link between the two Henris and Godefroy de Bouillon because the elder Henri held the title duc de Bouillon. In reality, how Henri de la Tour d’Auvergne came about that title is no mystery: he married Charlotte de La Marck, duchess of Bouillon. Charlotte’s family came about the title after Henri II of France officially bestowed it on her grandfather, Robert IV de La Marck, though the de La Marck family had first claimed lordship of Bouillon after Guillaume de La Marck assassinated Louis de Bourbon, Bishop of Liège (previous holder of the title) in 1482. That noble families might go extinct and titles be bestowed on unrelated families is a concept foreign to the authors, which is probably why they try to conflate the House of Ardennes-Verdun with the House of Metz simply because both held the title duke of Lorraine. It is indeed possible that the two were related (the wife of the founder of the House of Metz may have been one of the daughters of Thierry I, Duke of Upper Lorraine), but the authors don't seem aware at all that the House of Ardennes-Verdun became extinct in 1076 with the assassination of Godefroy III of Lower Lorraine. This, however, is probably due to the shoddy genealogical research that I complained of earlier.
In terms of religious content, Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln have trouble understanding the difference between Gnosticism and Arianism and don’t really understand the religious doctrines of either. They claim that Arianism is the belief that Jesus Christ was mortal when it’s actually the belief that God the Son was created after God the Father, and seem to think that Gnosticism was the same thing as believing that Jesus Christ was a mortal prophet. In reality, the Gnostics posited Jesus Christ as entirely divine and that his mortal form was nothing more than an illusion. This is because the Gnostics generally seem to believed that the material matter was a creation of an evil (or at least flawed) demiurge and that Jesus was sent by the true God to free mortals from the material world. This why the Gnostics claimed that Jesus wasn’t really crucified, but Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln either don’t understand this or they ignore it because it doesn’t fit with their thesis. Likewise, they're positing of the Cathars' being guardians of the secret of Jesus' bloodline makes little sense because the idea of Jesus fathering children would have been far more offensive to Cathar beliefs than Catholic ones. This is because, like the Gnostics, the Cathars also believed that Jesus had never actually taken human form and furthermore, their view of sex and marriage was so negative that it made Catholic theologians of the time look like advocates of free love by comparison. Bizarrely, the authors’ do comment on the Cathars’ disapproval of reproduction, but then fail to note how that doesn’t lend itself well to the notion of them guarding the secret of Jesus fathering children. Either they didn’t think this one through or they threw it the Cathars to make their insubstantial theories seem stronger than they actually are, because they happened to be from around the same general geographical location as Rennes-le-Château.
Overall, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is a muddled mess . Upon re-reading it, I noticed Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln can’t seem to make up their minds if the Grail bloodline flowed from Eustache II of Boulogne or Ide of Lorraine, so they attempt to do both at once and it makes about as much sense as you’d expect. They jump around from Godefroy de Bouillon to the Cathars to the Knights Templar to René d’Anjou and Jeanne d’Arc to the Guises and the Stewarts to the Rosicrucians without fully explaining what the continuity between these things is supposed to be. This is probably because the Priory documents forged by Pierre Plantard and Gérard de Sède themselves don’t make a lot of sense, either. When coming up with leaders of their fictitious organization, Plantard and Sède simply picked names that sounded impressive rather than ones that had any kind of religious and philosophical continuity. Ironically, the conspiracy theory the authors’ posit could have made slightly more sense if they’d done more research. If, for instance, they had actually researched the family trees of the Counts of Boulogne and Dukes of Lorraine, they might have noticed that the Chrétien de Troyes’ romance about the Holy Grail was dedicated to Philippe I, count of Flanders, who was related to the counts of Boulogne, dukes of Lorraine, and counts of Anjou. Now, I’m not saying this would be a great conspiracy theory, much less a true one, but it would make slightly more sense.
February 10, 2017
It's been a while now since I read this book out of curiosity after reading the Da Vinci Code. I admit that when I read the Da Vinci Code did posses a historical background gained by the school books, encyclopedias, and usual historic books that I could borrow in the library.
I heard many thoughts and rumors about this book which helped me have my own opinion about it. Nevertheless I have to say that I don't blindly believe every letter written on this work.
Firstly I think that the authors did an enormous research, mostly unbiased and they deserve to be appreciated about that. Secondly, during the reading I was confused several times with the names of the people and the events, and sometimes I thought that this book is leading me nowhere into a further comprehension. Even the authors themselves seemed confused for what were they talking about, and there was a lot of guessing, which is always doubtful and increases the suspect in a scientific research.
My constant inquiries led me to some conclusions while finishing the book. As a person with the complex of skepticism, I try to logically explain most of the events that occur, and honestly in the history school books there are lots of ridiculous information (can't call them facts) for which I feel pity that kids are obliged to learn them. I always like to mention the example of the crusades and the Medieval history, about which we hardly know more than 3-4 lines of explanation/definition (except the list of the European rulers).
Basically history is supported by the facts, and so far I agree. Although I have to think twice in order to define the word fact itself. Facts should support the theory, and theories are what this book is made of mostly, but the fact is the theory itself in which the historians community agreed upon, and approved it as reliable. Thus, what the historians community considers reliable should absolutely be such for us? It is necessary to take into consideration the fact that historians are like the usual bank employees. They do a great work, but not always in their interest. Obviously I am skeptical about the historians as well.
Going back to the content of the book above, I think that the three authors/researchers developed a critical way of thinking about the historical events by using logic and being constructive. Even that they possessed almost nothing except some suspicious data about certain people and places, there were strong conclusions, logically reliable in their work. For example the Grail is not described only as a chalice which held the blood of Jesus during his crucifixion, but also as a metaphor for the womb, symbol for the fertility etc. Thus there are several images related to the Grail, and everyone is free to chose which one to believe unless he/she doesn't have another theory about it (which would be even better though).
People, (including me) sometimes ask a lot from everything, we complain a lot, we are never fully satisfied with what (in this case) we read, and we tend to be often grumpy. In support of that, it comes to my mind the phrase: "Don't you like the cake I prepared? - No! - Okay than, make your own cake!"
The best way to "cure" these tendencies to be grumpy I think would be if we free our minds, try to use logic more often, and be constructive as well. Don't simply blindly believe everything, but take into consideration everything that we need in order to form/construct an opinion/theory/else.
I heard many thoughts and rumors about this book which helped me have my own opinion about it. Nevertheless I have to say that I don't blindly believe every letter written on this work.
Firstly I think that the authors did an enormous research, mostly unbiased and they deserve to be appreciated about that. Secondly, during the reading I was confused several times with the names of the people and the events, and sometimes I thought that this book is leading me nowhere into a further comprehension. Even the authors themselves seemed confused for what were they talking about, and there was a lot of guessing, which is always doubtful and increases the suspect in a scientific research.
My constant inquiries led me to some conclusions while finishing the book. As a person with the complex of skepticism, I try to logically explain most of the events that occur, and honestly in the history school books there are lots of ridiculous information (can't call them facts) for which I feel pity that kids are obliged to learn them. I always like to mention the example of the crusades and the Medieval history, about which we hardly know more than 3-4 lines of explanation/definition (except the list of the European rulers).
Basically history is supported by the facts, and so far I agree. Although I have to think twice in order to define the word fact itself. Facts should support the theory, and theories are what this book is made of mostly, but the fact is the theory itself in which the historians community agreed upon, and approved it as reliable. Thus, what the historians community considers reliable should absolutely be such for us? It is necessary to take into consideration the fact that historians are like the usual bank employees. They do a great work, but not always in their interest. Obviously I am skeptical about the historians as well.
Going back to the content of the book above, I think that the three authors/researchers developed a critical way of thinking about the historical events by using logic and being constructive. Even that they possessed almost nothing except some suspicious data about certain people and places, there were strong conclusions, logically reliable in their work. For example the Grail is not described only as a chalice which held the blood of Jesus during his crucifixion, but also as a metaphor for the womb, symbol for the fertility etc. Thus there are several images related to the Grail, and everyone is free to chose which one to believe unless he/she doesn't have another theory about it (which would be even better though).
People, (including me) sometimes ask a lot from everything, we complain a lot, we are never fully satisfied with what (in this case) we read, and we tend to be often grumpy. In support of that, it comes to my mind the phrase: "Don't you like the cake I prepared? - No! - Okay than, make your own cake!"
The best way to "cure" these tendencies to be grumpy I think would be if we free our minds, try to use logic more often, and be constructive as well. Don't simply blindly believe everything, but take into consideration everything that we need in order to form/construct an opinion/theory/else.
March 19, 2014
أسطورة الكأس تعبر إحدى الميثولوجيا المسيحية حيث يعتقد أنها الكأس التي استخدمها المسيح في العشاء الأخير وقام يوسف الرامي بجمع دم المسيح من على الصليب و كانت لها قوة إعجازية كبيرة لكن مؤلفي هذا الكتاب يعتقدون أن الكأس أو الإناء هو رحم المجدلية الذي إحتوى دم المسيح و هو دلالة على السلالة/الدم الملكي
يبدا كل شيئ حسب العهد القديم حيث يتعرض أحفاد أحد الأسباط للنبذ من طرف الإحدى عشر سبط الٱخرين فيقومون بالهجرة إلى اليونان بالضبط "أركاديا" تلك التي جاء ذكرها بلوحة بوسان
بعد قرون،مريم المجدلية "زوجة السيد المسيح كما يدعي المؤلفون" ستأتي إلى أوربا الغربية تحديدا "فرنسا" حاملة معها الكأس المقدسة تحوي دم السيد المسيح إشارة إلى كونها حاملا أو أما لأولاده
بإتحاد أحفاد بنيامين من العائلات اليهودية مع سلالة الكأس المقدسة ظهر ما يعرف بالمورفيين "الملوك ذو الشعر الطويل"التي ينحدر منها "غودوفري" الذي إحتل القدس سنة 1099 لإسترداد قبر المسيح و ميراثه الشرعي في العرش
الذي منح لهم في العهد القديم
عندما سلب تيتوس المعبد سنة 70 بعد الميلاد يعتقد أن الكاهن تركهم يسلبون الكنز المادي الذي جاؤوا لأجله لكنه أخفى الكنز الحقيقي تحت الهيكل المزعوم
نقش فوق قوس النصر في روما يمثل جنود تيتوس يحملون كنوز الهيكل
حين نشأ ما يسمى فرسان الهيكل "الجناح العسكري لدير صهيون "نقبوا تحت الهيكل في ما يسمى بإسطبلات سليمان و عثروا على ما جاؤوا للبحث عنه "يعتقد أنه كان جسد المسيح المحنط أو وثائق عن السلالة و زواج المجدلية و المسيح و ربما كلها مجتمعة شكلة الكأس"و أرسلوه إلى جنوب فرنسا و دفن في رين لو شاتو و تسبب ذلك في إبادة الكاثار حيث إتهمتهم الكنيسة بالهرطقة و دعى
البابا إينوسنت الثالث إلى حرب صليبية ضدهم
رين لو شاتو
تزعم منظمة دير صهيون أن العديد من الكتاب و الرسامين حملوا لقب أستاذ اعظم من بينهم (فيكتور هيغو،ليوناردو دافينشي،إسحاق نيوتن ،بوتشللي ،أوسكار وايلد ، جين كوكتو)
بالأخير يعتقد المؤلفون أن السلالة تلك إن كانت موجودة فسيكون أفرادها مقبولون عند الديانات الثلاثة كملوك للقدس و فلسطين و تعتبر مصالحة بين المسيحية و اليهودية و الإسلام لكن الظروف التاريخية لم تسمح لأن المسلمين إستردوا القدس سنة 1291 و أتساؤل لماذا لم ينفذ ذلك ما بين 1099 إلى 1291؟؟
ملاحظة
هذا الكتاب ألهم دان براون لكاتبة شفرة دافنشي فقتبس منه الكثير لتأليف روايته مما جعل المؤلفين الثلاثة يرفعون دعوى قضائية عليه متهمينه بالسرقة الأدبية
و كما يبدو واضحا تأثير الكتاب على كاتبة رواية المنتظرة
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...--
بالاضافة لكون هذا الكتاب احدى الكتب التي رشحها الكاتب فراس السواح للقراءة من خلال كتابه مغامرة العقل الأولى
October 9, 2014
Yep, the book famous for inspiring "The DaVinci Code" with its central theory that the Merovingian dynasty in France was descended from Jesus Christ himself, and this truth was safeguarded through history by a vast network of secret societies masterminded by the Priory of Sion.
What this reminds me most of is "The Spear of Destiny", the British WW2 veteran Trevor Ravenscroft's book about the spear that supposedly pierced the side of Christ. While "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is nowhere as crazy, it's got the same syndrome that its main thesis is not exactly very convincing but it's still full of useful information on the Grail legend's historical impact... if the reader can sort the wheat from the chaff, that is.
Not only is this a treasure-trove of information about how the Grail mysteries shaped the cultural history of the French-speaking part of Europe, which is even more than the legends surrounding the Holy Lance shaped that in the German-speaking part. It's also quite informative about the secret history of Christianity, from how many of the Gnostic and Jewish elements of the religion were excised by the Roman Catholic Church to now-forgotten sectarian rivalries like the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars.
The attempts at actually "connecting the dots", though? Well, that consists of half admitted conjecture for which not much in the way of hard evidence is available, half derived from sources that after the book's publication have been exposed as hoaxes. While I'm even more skeptical of the "official" story about Christianity's beginings than before I read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" I'm still far from convinced that there's much truth to the alternative history that the authors have constructed.
What this reminds me most of is "The Spear of Destiny", the British WW2 veteran Trevor Ravenscroft's book about the spear that supposedly pierced the side of Christ. While "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is nowhere as crazy, it's got the same syndrome that its main thesis is not exactly very convincing but it's still full of useful information on the Grail legend's historical impact... if the reader can sort the wheat from the chaff, that is.
Not only is this a treasure-trove of information about how the Grail mysteries shaped the cultural history of the French-speaking part of Europe, which is even more than the legends surrounding the Holy Lance shaped that in the German-speaking part. It's also quite informative about the secret history of Christianity, from how many of the Gnostic and Jewish elements of the religion were excised by the Roman Catholic Church to now-forgotten sectarian rivalries like the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars.
The attempts at actually "connecting the dots", though? Well, that consists of half admitted conjecture for which not much in the way of hard evidence is available, half derived from sources that after the book's publication have been exposed as hoaxes. While I'm even more skeptical of the "official" story about Christianity's beginings than before I read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" I'm still far from convinced that there's much truth to the alternative history that the authors have constructed.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 855 reviews