
Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a ''New York Times'' bestseller and work of pseudohistory written by authors Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, which was published in 1982 by Dell (ISBN 055212138). The book followed on from a BBC TV documentary. While it is a popular book, its conspiracy theory remain outside the fringes of academic inquiry on its subjects. It details the authors' own quest for the Holy Grail by investigating the concocted mysteries of the village of Rennes-le-Château dating from the 1950s in southern France and constructing a conspiratorial view of the history of the Western world. After a decade of research and speculation, Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln came to the following conclusions: [[Image:Poussinorig.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Poussin's ''Et in Arcadia ego'' features prominently in the authors' quest]] * There is a secret society known as Priory of Sion (PS) that has a long and illustrious history dating back to the First Crusade starting with the creation of the Knights Templar as its military and financial front. The PS is led by a Grandmaster or Nautonnier. * It is devoted to returning the Merovingian dynasty, that ruled the Frankish kingdom from A.D. 447 to 751, to the thrones of Europe and Jerusalem. * the order protects these royal claimants because they may be the literal descendants of Jesus and his wife Mary Magdalene or, at the very least, of king David and high priest Aaron. *The Roman Catholic Church tried to kill off all remnants of this dynasty and their guardians, the Cathars and the Knights Templar, during the Inquisition, in order to maintain power through the apostolic succession of Saint Peter instead of the Desposyni of Mary Magdalene. It is generally presumed they knew these claims to be at best unprovable, or false. In fact, Richard Leigh has stated on television, that they only set out to give a plausible hypothesis, but "never believed it to be true". These theories have not been accepted by any reputable historians. Medieval-history students have lost marks in essays and exams through accepting works such as ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail'', or successors inspired by it, as sources. Author Dan Brown, in his bestseller ''The Da Vinci Code'', makes reference to this book, and uses several of the above claims as key plot elements; indeed, Baigent and Leigh have attempted to sue Dan Brown for plagiarism, on the grounds that his book makes extensive use of their research and that one of the characters is named Leigh, has a surname (Teabing) which is an anagram of Baigent, and has a physical description strongly resembling Henry Lincoln. The computer adventure game Gabriel Knight uses many of the points as an important element in the story. ''The Messianic Legacy'' is the 1987 sequel to ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail''. ==See also== *List of dubious historical resources ==External links and references== * Official website of Holy Blood, Holy Grail co-author Richard Leigh. ''[http://www.egoetia.com ''www.eGoetia.com''] * Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln (1982). ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail''. (ISBN 0385338597) This is the ISBN for the current hardcover edition (as of 2004). The 1982 Delacorte Press (hardcover imprint of Dell) edition had the ISBN 0440036623. * Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. ''The Messianic Legacy'', 1987 (1989 reissue: ISBN 0440203198) *Alex Burns. ''[http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id96/pg1/ Holy Blood, Holy Grail]'' A short but insightful review of the book. *Ken Mondschein. ''[http://nypress.com/17/28/books/KenMondschein.cfm Holy Blood, Holy Grail]'' A review and debunking of the book *Kristi and Mark Fisher. [http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/jesus.html ''The Jesus Conspiracy''] * Paul Smith. ''[http://priory-of-sion.com/ Priory of Sion: The Pierre Plantard Archives 1937-1993]'' An extensive debunking resource * Wieland Willker. [http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Rennes/ Codex Bezae and the Da Vinci Code: A textcritical look at the Rennes-le-Chateau hoax] * Laura Miller. [http://salon.com/books/feature/2004/12/29/da_vinci_code/index.html ''The Da Vinci crock''] A review and debunking of the book * The Telegraph, ''[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/03/wvinci03.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/03/ixnewstop.html Da Vinci Code bestseller is plagiarism, authors claim]'' An article on the dispute between the authors and Dan Brown. Priory of Sion hoax 1982 books controversial books Dubious historical resources
A section or even paragraph describing how the authors have responded to such criticism would be appropriate. --User:24.118.206.25 00:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) ---- I only read a few words and was compelled to write this. Pseudohistory????? The research that went into this book, which I have read twice so far, is amazing. How could that much information be labelled as pseudo? Because you say so? — 64.57.101.198 :A certain free online encyclopedia says: "Pseudohistory typically blends together real history with myths and legends, without any attempt at criticism or fact checking."—which sounds like a perfect description of this book, except that it neglects to mention "reams of wild speculation", which is another key characteristic of Baigent et al's method. ''Pseudohistory'' is a nice way of describing it. —User:MirvUser talk:Mirv 10:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) "Realms of speculation" would be a more accurate description, as the suthors clearly state throughout the book that they are speculating on what hypothetically might have happened. If the reader takes all this as established historical fact, that is not the authors' fault. --User:Sentience 01:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC) == Ken Mondschein == I removed Ken Mondschein's ''[http://nypress.com/17/28/books/KenMondschein.cfm/ review and debunking of the book]'' from the external links and references section because the NY Press link was a dead end. :Only because of a superfluous trailing slash. I put it back. User:MirvUser talk:Mirv 16:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Bloodline theory == The Resurrection of Jesus article says : Other writers claim that Jesus was taken from Roman custody when the crowds asked instead for ''Barabbas''. These theories have given rise to such works of pseudohistory as ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail'', which espouses the idea that the Merovingian kings were descendants of Jesus. It's been too long since I read ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail'' for me to be sure, but I do not recall the bloodline theory being dependent on Jesus not being crucified or surviving the crucifixion, merely on Mary Magdalene carying his offspring. If that is indeed the case, could someone please update the reference in that article? User:Ray Dassen 21:51, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC) == I have seen you nit-pick the perimeter... == The essence of the book is the debunking of Christ. The authors may be wrong on everything else but the simple truth still stands: Jesus Christ was nothing more than a political figure. While the Christians attack the book and foam at the mouth to prove it is a hoax, no-one has debunked the most important part. This is the reason the book attracts so much attention, not because it's about secret societies or some mystery in france. As far as I can tell both sides of the debate are equally at fault for using post-hoc, red herring arguments. (Another good read is: The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (Allegro, John M.) one of the dead-see scroll researchers interesting interpretation of the bible) -James C == The case of Paul Smith == On Feb 6, 2005, Paul Smith edited the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holy_Blood%2C_Holy_Grail&oldid=9991574 Holy Blood, Holy Grail article] to write the following: The \"conclusions\" of Baigent Lincoln and Leigh can hardly be described as \"controversial\" by the academics - only their nutty supporters can claim such a thing! And did it really take \"years\" of research to write that book? Wikipedia WILL become the focus of attention on the http://priory-of-sion.com website with its nutty descriptions of pseudo-historical twaddle and some people here will get their come-uppance! What a disgraceful promotion of a nutty book that was never history in the first place - only a product of the imagination. \"Loremaster\" - the person who controls this webpage is a true fruitcake who should stand on the same side as the Henry Lincolns of this world. He is a maniac. :1. No contributor to the ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail'' article has ever suggested that academics find Baigent, Lincoln & Leigh's conclusions to be controversials. However, if a book is banned in many countries because of the conclusions it contains, it's obvious that they have created a controversy. :2. Regardless of whether one judges these authors' research methodology as being unacademic (which I do), it doesn't change the fact that it took them many years to finish their work. :3. I don't think anyone cares whether Wikipedia is unfairly attacked by an overzealous fringe researcher on his website. :4. Wikipedia is not being used by anyone to promote HBHG. The article has always been and continues to be quite clear about the pseudo-historicity of the book and it's claims. The reason why HBHG has and deserves an article is because it has and continues to have a significant influence on popular culture. :5. Although I watch this article carefully to make sure it doesn't degenerate from a neutral entry in an encyclopedia to an hysterical tabloid editorial, I do not control it. Everyone, including Paul Smith, is free to edit and expand it to make it better. :6. Although I've always been fascinated by the HBHG and the Priory of Sion for reasons best explained by [http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id96/pg1/ Alex Burns], I've always and continue to be extremely skeptical. Although my contributions may not have conveyed this to Paul Smith's satisfaction, I don't see how this makes me a fruitcake or a maniac. Seriously. Are all these insults necessary? :User:Loremaster 22:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) On Feb 7, 2005, Paul Smith edited the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holy_Blood%2C_Holy_Grail&oldid=10040980 Holy Blood, Holy Grail article] to write the following: The article on this webpage is a sheer act of vandalism - it gives a technical definition on a book of POOR fantasy and which is less colourful than anything written by, say, Sven Hassel. The Authors of this \"book\" were informed well before they finished writing it by French researcher Jean-Luc Chaumeil that the story was all a load of dogshit. :One has to be blind not to see that the article clearly explains that HBHG is a book of pseudohistory. An article in any respectable encyclopedia must be a neutral technical definition devoid of vitriol. However, if Paul Smith wants to create a Criticism section in the article itself, he is more than welcomed. User:Loremaster 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
#REDIRECT Holy Blood, Holy Grail
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Holy_Blood,_Holy_Grail:
Holy_Blood,_Holy_Grail
Holy_Blood,_Holy_Grail
Holy_blood,_holy_grail
Holy Blood, Holy Grail
Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a ''New York Times'' bestseller and work of pseudohistory written by authors Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, which was published in 1982 by Dell (ISBN 055212138). The book followed on from a BBC TV documentary. While it is a popular book, its conspiracy theory remain outside the fringes of academic inquiry on its subjects. It details the authors' own quest for the Holy Grail by investigating the concocted mysteries of the village of Rennes-le-Château dating from the 1950s in southern France and constructing a conspiratorial view of the history of the Western world. After a decade of research and speculation, Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln came to the following conclusions: [[Image:Poussinorig.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Poussin's ''Et in Arcadia ego'' features prominently in the authors' quest]] * There is a secret society known as Priory of Sion (PS) that has a long and illustrious history dating back to the First Crusade starting with the creation of the Knights Templar as its military and financial front. The PS is led by a Grandmaster or Nautonnier. * It is devoted to returning the Merovingian dynasty, that ruled the Frankish kingdom from A.D. 447 to 751, to the thrones of Europe and Jerusalem. * the order protects these royal claimants because they may be the literal descendants of Jesus and his wife Mary Magdalene or, at the very least, of king David and high priest Aaron. *The Roman Catholic Church tried to kill off all remnants of this dynasty and their guardians, the Cathars and the Knights Templar, during the Inquisition, in order to maintain power through the apostolic succession of Saint Peter instead of the Desposyni of Mary Magdalene. It is generally presumed they knew these claims to be at best unprovable, or false. In fact, Richard Leigh has stated on television, that they only set out to give a plausible hypothesis, but "never believed it to be true". These theories have not been accepted by any reputable historians. Medieval-history students have lost marks in essays and exams through accepting works such as ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail'', or successors inspired by it, as sources. Author Dan Brown, in his bestseller ''The Da Vinci Code'', makes reference to this book, and uses several of the above claims as key plot elements; indeed, Baigent and Leigh have attempted to sue Dan Brown for plagiarism, on the grounds that his book makes extensive use of their research and that one of the characters is named Leigh, has a surname (Teabing) which is an anagram of Baigent, and has a physical description strongly resembling Henry Lincoln. The computer adventure game Gabriel Knight uses many of the points as an important element in the story. ''The Messianic Legacy'' is the 1987 sequel to ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail''. ==See also== *List of dubious historical resources ==External links and references== * Official website of Holy Blood, Holy Grail co-author Richard Leigh. ''[http://www.egoetia.com ''www.eGoetia.com''] * Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln (1982). ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail''. (ISBN 0385338597) This is the ISBN for the current hardcover edition (as of 2004). The 1982 Delacorte Press (hardcover imprint of Dell) edition had the ISBN 0440036623. * Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. ''The Messianic Legacy'', 1987 (1989 reissue: ISBN 0440203198) *Alex Burns. ''[http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id96/pg1/ Holy Blood, Holy Grail]'' A short but insightful review of the book. *Ken Mondschein. ''[http://nypress.com/17/28/books/KenMondschein.cfm Holy Blood, Holy Grail]'' A review and debunking of the book *Kristi and Mark Fisher. [http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/jesus.html ''The Jesus Conspiracy''] * Paul Smith. ''[http://priory-of-sion.com/ Priory of Sion: The Pierre Plantard Archives 1937-1993]'' An extensive debunking resource * Wieland Willker. [http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Rennes/ Codex Bezae and the Da Vinci Code: A textcritical look at the Rennes-le-Chateau hoax] * Laura Miller. [http://salon.com/books/feature/2004/12/29/da_vinci_code/index.html ''The Da Vinci crock''] A review and debunking of the book * The Telegraph, ''[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/03/wvinci03.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/03/ixnewstop.html Da Vinci Code bestseller is plagiarism, authors claim]'' An article on the dispute between the authors and Dan Brown. Priory of Sion hoax 1982 books controversial books Dubious historical resources
Holy Blood, Holy Grail
A section or even paragraph describing how the authors have responded to such criticism would be appropriate. --User:24.118.206.25 00:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) ---- I only read a few words and was compelled to write this. Pseudohistory????? The research that went into this book, which I have read twice so far, is amazing. How could that much information be labelled as pseudo? Because you say so? — 64.57.101.198 :A certain free online encyclopedia says: "Pseudohistory typically blends together real history with myths and legends, without any attempt at criticism or fact checking."—which sounds like a perfect description of this book, except that it neglects to mention "reams of wild speculation", which is another key characteristic of Baigent et al's method. ''Pseudohistory'' is a nice way of describing it. —User:MirvUser talk:Mirv 10:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) "Realms of speculation" would be a more accurate description, as the suthors clearly state throughout the book that they are speculating on what hypothetically might have happened. If the reader takes all this as established historical fact, that is not the authors' fault. --User:Sentience 01:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC) == Ken Mondschein == I removed Ken Mondschein's ''[http://nypress.com/17/28/books/KenMondschein.cfm/ review and debunking of the book]'' from the external links and references section because the NY Press link was a dead end. :Only because of a superfluous trailing slash. I put it back. User:MirvUser talk:Mirv 16:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Bloodline theory == The Resurrection of Jesus article says : Other writers claim that Jesus was taken from Roman custody when the crowds asked instead for ''Barabbas''. These theories have given rise to such works of pseudohistory as ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail'', which espouses the idea that the Merovingian kings were descendants of Jesus. It's been too long since I read ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail'' for me to be sure, but I do not recall the bloodline theory being dependent on Jesus not being crucified or surviving the crucifixion, merely on Mary Magdalene carying his offspring. If that is indeed the case, could someone please update the reference in that article? User:Ray Dassen 21:51, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC) == I have seen you nit-pick the perimeter... == The essence of the book is the debunking of Christ. The authors may be wrong on everything else but the simple truth still stands: Jesus Christ was nothing more than a political figure. While the Christians attack the book and foam at the mouth to prove it is a hoax, no-one has debunked the most important part. This is the reason the book attracts so much attention, not because it's about secret societies or some mystery in france. As far as I can tell both sides of the debate are equally at fault for using post-hoc, red herring arguments. (Another good read is: The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (Allegro, John M.) one of the dead-see scroll researchers interesting interpretation of the bible) -James C == The case of Paul Smith == On Feb 6, 2005, Paul Smith edited the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holy_Blood%2C_Holy_Grail&oldid=9991574 Holy Blood, Holy Grail article] to write the following: The \"conclusions\" of Baigent Lincoln and Leigh can hardly be described as \"controversial\" by the academics - only their nutty supporters can claim such a thing! And did it really take \"years\" of research to write that book? Wikipedia WILL become the focus of attention on the http://priory-of-sion.com website with its nutty descriptions of pseudo-historical twaddle and some people here will get their come-uppance! What a disgraceful promotion of a nutty book that was never history in the first place - only a product of the imagination. \"Loremaster\" - the person who controls this webpage is a true fruitcake who should stand on the same side as the Henry Lincolns of this world. He is a maniac. :1. No contributor to the ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail'' article has ever suggested that academics find Baigent, Lincoln & Leigh's conclusions to be controversials. However, if a book is banned in many countries because of the conclusions it contains, it's obvious that they have created a controversy. :2. Regardless of whether one judges these authors' research methodology as being unacademic (which I do), it doesn't change the fact that it took them many years to finish their work. :3. I don't think anyone cares whether Wikipedia is unfairly attacked by an overzealous fringe researcher on his website. :4. Wikipedia is not being used by anyone to promote HBHG. The article has always been and continues to be quite clear about the pseudo-historicity of the book and it's claims. The reason why HBHG has and deserves an article is because it has and continues to have a significant influence on popular culture. :5. Although I watch this article carefully to make sure it doesn't degenerate from a neutral entry in an encyclopedia to an hysterical tabloid editorial, I do not control it. Everyone, including Paul Smith, is free to edit and expand it to make it better. :6. Although I've always been fascinated by the HBHG and the Priory of Sion for reasons best explained by [http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id96/pg1/ Alex Burns], I've always and continue to be extremely skeptical. Although my contributions may not have conveyed this to Paul Smith's satisfaction, I don't see how this makes me a fruitcake or a maniac. Seriously. Are all these insults necessary? :User:Loremaster 22:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) On Feb 7, 2005, Paul Smith edited the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holy_Blood%2C_Holy_Grail&oldid=10040980 Holy Blood, Holy Grail article] to write the following: The article on this webpage is a sheer act of vandalism - it gives a technical definition on a book of POOR fantasy and which is less colourful than anything written by, say, Sven Hassel. The Authors of this \"book\" were informed well before they finished writing it by French researcher Jean-Luc Chaumeil that the story was all a load of dogshit. :One has to be blind not to see that the article clearly explains that HBHG is a book of pseudohistory. An article in any respectable encyclopedia must be a neutral technical definition devoid of vitriol. However, if Paul Smith wants to create a Criticism section in the article itself, he is more than welcomed. User:Loremaster 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Holy blood, holy grail
#REDIRECT Holy Blood, Holy Grail
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
H
HA | HB | HC | HD | HE | HF | HG | HI | HJ | HK | HL | HM | HN | HO | HP | HR | HS | HT | HU | HW | HX | HY | HZ |Words begining with Holy_Blood,_Holy_Grail:
Holy_Blood,_Holy_Grail
Holy_Blood,_Holy_Grail
Holy_blood,_holy_grail
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
