aunt_t's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

Baigent makes a good argument based on multiple historical texts while at the same time going out on a limb with his inference. I'm sure the RC Church wasn't happy with many of his claims.

brandie185's review

Go to review page

3.0

Okay, here's the thing. The background information he presents was interesting to me. He made a few great points in the book that really made me think. But, let me go on to say, Biagent is trying to show how the NT is maybe not all we think it is - saying they are simply stories contrived to serve specific purposes and don't have the innocent writing background most assume today. Then he goes on to say they are false because there is fact A. And if we assume fact B caused fact A, and then we assume fact C caused fact B and then we do some more assuming, well, that proves this really incredible thing happened instead of what The Bible says. I find a lot of what may have happened just as woven and created, if not more so, than what he says about the Bible. Just my two cents though!
More...