Amalie 's Reviews > Holy Blood, Holy Grail

Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Dec 02, 2011

it was ok
bookshelves: legands-myths
Read from November 19 to December 11, 2011

I read "The Da Vinci Code" years back and I know, basically, Dan Brown got his "research" from this. There are some sentences here, repeated exactly the same way in "The Da Vinci Code".

If you are interested in conspiracy theories only then you'll like this. This book has been published even before I was born, so why read after more the 2 decades, specially after "The Priory of Sion" myth was debunked by journalists and scholars as one the great hoaxes of the 20th century? Well, I just happened to come across the book.

I found it to be poorly argued. I expected better arguments. I did read the book rather quickly but skipped a lot in the second part regarding "the Priory of Zion". Only thing I paid attention to was the theory about the writer of the Fourth Gospel which they claim to be Lazarus who was Jesus' "brother-in-law" because he was the brother of Mary of Bethany who is actually Mary Magdalene who was Jesus' "wife" and Barabbas is Jesus himself?? or "his son"... Here's an Idea Barabbas was an alien!

The main fault in this book is they talk about "A" and talk about "B" and they say A+B = C then soon after that, they say it can also be D and even E , F...Z. There's no end. It seems they were unbiased in the beginning but by half a way, they want to prove they are correct and will represent anything and the end result is they have a big pile of mess.

Only thing I've read in this area is the Gospels and I recognized they are twisting everything written there. It's so crazy, they pick the sentence which they want to focus on and come to conclusions without reading the befores and afters. They say Jesus talked in allegories and then they take the literal meaning of what he said. I'm pretty sure at one point they said Jesus might have been a terrorist, a Zealot.

But this is a book which will check your ability to be open minded and I was. So here's the catch "Could Jesus have been married?" "Could Mary M have been his wife?" "Could she have been carrying his child?" Sure, why not, I suppose so, he was human after all. I'm ok with even the whole theory about Merovingians. BUT could "Jesus and his disciples have purposely faked his death at the crucifixion?" Nope. And sorry, my mind is wide shut now. Christianity couldn't have survived with such a lie. Come on, people! That's one of the lamest assumptions I can think of.

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
Sign In »

No comments have been added yet.