The Hiram Key has been a very popular book since was published in 1997. It purports to uncover the real truth about the Pharaohs, Freemasons, and the Secret Scrolls of Jesus. My criticism of the book is purely a personal matter. Any Mason has the right to put almost anything in print, as long as it is legal. Mr. Knight and Lomas have the right to believe whatever they wish, and have the freedom to put it in print. The book has some very interesting topics, but in my opinion, has some very serious flaws in reality.

My evaluation of the book will be very brief, but I hope it will be sufficient to expose the author's conclusions.

1. The Hiram Key is definitely an anti-Christian book. This may not be important to you, but since most Masons are of the Christian faith, they might appreciate knowing that this book does not support the Christian religion.

2. The book is lacking in references. There is a word index in the back of the book, but not one page of references can be found. The writers often say something like "We have found.." and almost never quote any other source for their information.

3. The book belongs on the fiction rack. Most of the ideas that are presented are pure speculation.

4. The book is slanted toward Gnosticism and promotes the idea that it had certain truth that was feared by the Early Christian Church. The Gnostics called the literal resurrection of Jesus "the faith of fools." In their conclusion to the chapter on The Gnostic Connection they say "We have speculated that the Templars may have found a cache of writings which changed their world-view..."

5. They present the person of Jesus as being somewhat of a myth, and try to promote the idea that he was on the same level as other "messiahs" and "children of god" that were part of pagan religions. On page 49 they say, "..Jesus was not the Messiah of the line of David (the Christ), because he did not succeed in becoming the undisputed king of Israel. On the same page they state, "A further problem for mainline Christianity is the belief that Jesus was the offspring of a magical mating of Yahwey and Mary." On page 50 they say, "Being free from the requirements of the dogma of blind faith, we had accepted that the legend of Jesus Christ was an amalgam of supernatural yarns brought in from other mystery religions."

6. The authors have a way of downplaying the inspiration of the Bible. On page 48 it says, "The same cavalier people who had doctored the Old Testament assembled the New Testament.

7. It is reported by the authors that Jesus had a connection with the Templars. They believe that Jesus and his followers were originally called Nasoreans (or Nazarenes). They claim that the Nasoreans were an offshoot movement of that day that Jesus was leading, and that he was never the leader of the Church. They just don't believe that he was the "Jesus of Nazareth" of the Bible, because they claim that Nazareth was not even a town yet. That just isn't true. It was founded at least two hundred years prior to the birth of Christ.

8. Did Freemasonry come out of Egypt? Well since the Egyptians had the concept of two pillars (North and South Kingdoms), and believed in the concept of Ma'at (righteousness, truth, an justice, they surely must have been Masons, or so says the authors.

9. The authors believe that Mary had two sons named Jesus. Both were put on trial for claiming to be the messiah. The one who did not die was actually James, the Lesser, who became the true superstar of the Church.

10. Is the Shroud of Turin a picture of the crucified Jesus or the crucified Jacques De Molay? Of course. You guess it right. The authors chose DeMolay.

I will have to say that I do agree with much of the authors' theories about the Knights Templars disappearance and possible transformation into Freemasonry. This however, is not an original idea with Knight and Lomas. Their history of Freemasonry after 1600 A.D. is also fairly factual, but again, not original with them.

If you like fictional reading and are not offended by slams against the Bible you may find the book of some interest. Again, this is just my opinion, which apparently differs significantly from the authors.