Most Helpful Customer Reviews
33 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Where is the Evidence?, May 19, 2000
By A Customer
When it comes to history, Joe Friday had the right idea, "just the facts." An intelligent person does not want to read a listing of someone's conclusions, he or she wants to see the evidence and make up his or her own mind. In reading "Bloodline" one question kept returning to my head, "where is the evidence?" Gardner makes plenty of assertions, conclusions, and claims, but the evidence is missing. When he does provide a footnote, it is more likely to contain another wild assertion of fact than a reference to the source of his statement. When the source of information is cited, it is too often an archive unknown to other scholars. If a genuine citation to a verifiable source (i.e. one that I can check out for myself) is provided, it is inevitably to some universally known fact that no one ever questions. For instance, the second and third paragraphs on page 43 contain a long discussion of the supposed role of John the Baptist in a supposed dispute between Jesus and his brother James over who was the Messiah. The lone footnote (#27)in these two paragraphs tells us that Zadok was High Priest under King David and the subject of an 18th century musical composition by Handel. Any educated person knows about Zadok and Handel, what I want to know is the source for Gardner's claims about the role of John the Baptist in a dispute between Jesus and James. You can search in vain for Gardner's source, he never provides it. This is only one example of the problem. Time and again, Gardner makes claims that completely challenge accepted facts without providing any citation that would allow the reader to check for himself or herself. Each time I saw a new claim, I would rush to see the source only to discover that there was no citation or that the citation pertained to an irrelevant or unrelated fact. When I read an assertion of fact that the author fails to substantiate with verifiable evidence (verifiable by anyone), I can only reach one conclusion. That conclusion is that the author did not provide substantiation because it does not exist.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
32 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
House of Cards, February 26, 2000
Unfortunately, instead of adding a new perspective, or new and illuminating information, Gardner, has used the dubious theories of Barbara Thiering and married them to his agenda to promote a restored aristocracy for some defunct nobles, to create a new kind of Christian (and watered-down) messianism. There are so many mistakes in this book it is not even funny. He follows verbatim the proselytising Christianity of Fathers, Milik and DeVaux ofthe Scrolls team, referring to Qumram as a pre-Christian monastary. He repeats the anti-Semtic, content of the NT, without analysis and the necessary detective work to place it in the proper context. I have been to Qumram and walked on the plain of Moab, and my then admittedly uneducated perception was that there was a military spirit that ruled here along with the spiritual and moral components that are still so evident. The use of the word 'essenes' is distracting, because no one is sure of its meaning. Dr. Eisenman's guess is that it refers to 'Oseh ha Torah' or doers of the Torah. This is far more likely than Gardner's desperate attempt to graft his agenda onto the branch of the 'desposyni' or the family of Jesus. Gardner also creates a split between Jesus and James, which is fictional and supicious for its continuing effort to seoarate Jesus from his family and his nation. Also he has no real familiarity with the distinction between the various sectarian groups, such as the Pharisees and the Sadduccees. he shows none of the ability to note the distinctions that Eisenman so masterfully demonstrated in "James,the Brother of Jesus". The Pharisees were the 'seekers after smooth things' referred to in the Scrolls.They were not the strict legalists the christians invented to show the superiority of their own 'new' religion. Gardner seems unaware of the extent to which the Jews were united as a people in their hatred of the Greco-Roman cultural imperialists. Paul was a Herodian, as he suggests and Eisenman establishes definitively, he may well have been involved in the death of Jesus, he was certainly involved in the stoning of James and his death just before the outbreak of war in 66 ce. Gardner fails to establish a credible path or reason for the 'desposyni' through time, his foundation is not secure (Thiering), and his assumptions are arrogantly expressed as being 'obvious'. He completely ignores the real meaning of the eschatological writings found at Qumram, the importance of the Star Prophecy of Daniel and the strength of the Yahad and its influence on the whole nation of Israel. I'm not contending that the book is completely worthless, but it is a close call, and that in itself is a disappointment.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
25 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Poor Scholarship Unsupported by Evidence, February 7, 2000
By A Customer
Laurence Gardner has written a book that introduces controversial ideas, but fails to provide any reliable evidence to support his conclusions. He lists a great deal of information, but he does not give references to his sources. Most of the footnotes contain additional, unsubstantiated, claims instead of citations to sources. Those that do cite a source refer to discredited modern writings or outdated translations of questionable ancient documents. Gardner repeatedly cites sources and writings that every other scholar has rejected. Numerous false Gospels, forged Christian writings, fake genealogies, myths, lies, and other inaccurate information has circulated over the centuries. Scholars at the time rejected these writings. Gardner now cites these discredited sources without giving any justification for changing past scholars' rejections of them. More disturbing is Gardner's failure to list any traditional scholarly credentials. It is normal for the author of a book such as this to describe his education and training. Even a high-school dropout would list the high school he attended. Instead, Gardner lists only questionable distinctions awarded by his friend "Prince Michael of Albany." His claim to be "an internationally known sovereign and chivalric genealogist" is misleading. "Internationally known" merely means that people in more than one country know that he claims to be a genealogist. Anyone who studies, even in passing, the genealogy of a royal family can claim to be a "sovereign and chivalric genealogist." Ultimately, this designation, while impressive looking, is meaningless. Unfortunately, "Prince Michael" has been repeatedly exposed as a fake prince with no connection to the House of Stewart. This fact raises questions about Gardner's credentials. Worse, when you reach the end of "Bloodline" you discover that the whole purpose of the book is to prove that "Prince Michael" is heir to the throne of King David of Israel, senior blood descendant of Jesus, and rightful King of Scotland. Unfortunately, we now know that "Prince Michael" is a failed Belgian caterer with no royal blood. An examination of the genealogy that Gardner provides for "Prince Michael" demonstrates that the claims are not true. This genealogy contains the names of several people who simply did not exist. The Vatican or the British Royal Family did not cover up their existence; they simply did not exist. The assertion that the British Royal Family managed to conceal information about "Prince Michael's" ancestry is laughable. As anyone who reads the news knows, the Royal House of Windsor cannot conceal what the Queen had for dinner last night. Every bid of dirty laundry the Windsors have ever had has become the subject of gossip and tell-all books. Yet, we are to believe they could cover-up the existence of generations of members of the Stewart family. Similarly, the Vatican is hardly an organization noted for its ability to keep a secret. In any case, far from working together to conceal the existence of Stewart princes, the Vatican and the British Royal Family have been at odds with each other for most of the last two centuries. Unless you are blinded by an addiction to conspiracy theories, you cannot believe that Prince Charles Edward the Young Pretender divorced his wife secretly, secretly remarried, and left a secret line of descendants who lived unknown for two centuries. Further, contrary to Gardner's claim, the story of "Prince Michael" is not well known in Europe. In contrast, I have yet to find any European who has heard of "Prince Michael" or the continuing House of Stewart. If you look at media reports on Europe's reigning families (Belgium, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Spain) you never see "Prince Michael" included in their gatherings. There is little doubt that Gardner's claims about "Prince Michael" are completely false. Given that fact, I must seriously question the rest of his conclusions. If Gardner can be duped by a fake prince and accept false evidence about events in the last two centuries, I cannot believe that he can be accurate about events occurring two thousand years ago. The sad fact appears to be that Gardner set out to enhance the status of "Prince Michael" and grabbed any story that supported "Prince Michael's" claims regardless of their validity. A man who cannot discern between a caterer with royal pretensions and a prince cannot be trusted to discern the truth about Jesus Christ. In conclusion, Gardner's book fails every test of scholarly legitimacy. He has no recognized training or credentials. He fails to provide any evidence to support his claims. His claims about a vast conspiracy by the Vatican and the British Royal Family are simply laughable. His conclusion concerning "Prince Michael" is false. As a result of these facts, the conclusions of "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" have to be rejected as poor scholarship unsupported by adequate evidence. There are some very good books in publication that ask useful questions about the meaning of Christian scripture, the life of Christ, and the history of the Church. Notably, John Shelby Spong, has done extensive scholarly research in this area. Many very good books are available on these subjects written by excellent scholars. Some of these books raise serious challenges to traditional Christian viewpoints and teachings. Laurence Gardner and "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" do not fit into this category.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
