Customer Reviews: Read 3 more reviews...
 Historical Fiction December 10, 2008
Eleanor de Montfort (France)
I was intrigued by this book, and read the first part with great interest but gradually I became suspicious of some of the claims made. On close inspection of a gigantic bibliography I realised that a lot of this author's research is based on secondary research and much questionable information. Also, where one would like to look at the origins of some of his statements there were no references. For an historian to get simple schoolchild facts incorrect makes the book totally unbelievable...Edward I, he claims, expelled the jews in 1209...Edward wasn't even born in 1209! Merrie England, according to the Oxford dictionary of Etymology, has nothing whatsoever to do with Mary England. If I had produced this work for my history degree my tutor would have drummed me out of my class.
It makes me angry that a subject The Magdalene Legacy: The Jesus and Mary Bloodline Conspiracy - Revelations Beyond "The Da Vinci Code"sensitive to many people can be so degraded by guesswork and poor factual research. I am glad to note that this book is not classified as History.
 A Gnostic viewpoint August 3, 2008
Book Worm
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I feel that the reviewer B.B. of The Magdalene Legacy has somewhat missed the point. The reviewer is correct in stating that nowhere in the four Gospels does it state that Joanna is the sister of Jesus but has failed to appreciate that is just the point that is being made by the author - the Roman church supressed the Gnostic gospels in which such information is to be found when the church was founded by Constantine 1700 years ago. It seems a pity to go to the trouble of reviewing a book if one cannot be bothered to read it properly or to understand the premise of the book in question. I believe this book to be an excellent starting point to an individual exploration and understanding of Gnostic writings.
MARY MAGDALENE IS THE HOLY GRAIL July 6, 2008
Mr Majinka (Lancashire uk)
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
As with all Laurence Gardeners books I found the points raised as worthy of further thought. It was a book I read over one weekend and I found it a rewarding read. The contents mirror and augment a similar book that is well worth the read. Try 'THE SECRET HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY' it brings Magdalene's story to the layman.
Drivel August 26, 2007
Chris (Birmingham UK)
2 out of 5 found this review helpful
I am prompted to write by an earlier review which speaks of scholarly precision. Never have I read a book that was less scholarly. Nor one that was so badly written.
One of the earlier reviews likens the book to a badly cobbled together undergraduate essay, but that is surely to do it too much justice. To delve into any part of the book is to have it fall apart beneath one's fingers. To give just one example, we are informed that "the story of Mary Magdalene's exile and flight is given in Revelation 12". The flimsiest evidence is adduced for this contention (the "crown of twelve stars" that is mentioned at Revelation 12:1), but no attempt whatever is made to substantiate the point. What, for instance, are we to make of Revelation 12:5, which reads: "And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron"? And if the dragon in verse 4 is, as Gardner contends, the Roman army, how does it manage to fight "a war in heaven" (12:7). And why and how does the dragon also have "angels"?
The author appears to have read an enormous amount of material about these matters, but seems sadly to have no notion of how to weigh evidence or how to present it so that it can be properly examined by the reader. When he does refer to serious scholars, he rarely gives a reference to their work. For example, an important argument by Geza Vermes is referred to on page 74, but there is no supporting reference, the only footnote on that page being to A.N. Wilson. The work of artists is constantly drawn upon as though it provided some form of privileged insight, but no discussion of the status of such "evidence" is attempted. When the scholarly arguments of others are discussed, they are generally dismissed in terms that tell us more about Mr Gardner than about the matter in question - e.g. a theology professor's argument about the reasons for the depiction of Magdalene with long hair is treated contemptuously: "This of course means nothing except that the writer did not have a clue about why Mary Magdalene is commonly featured in this way."
Conversely, important matters of scholarly debate about the nature of the Qumran settlement, the putative presence there of Essenes, the question of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their individual significance are treated as though they had been historically resolved. Indeed, the scrolls are baldly referred to as "the Dead Sea Scrolls of Essene records" (p. 67). And we are told, for example, "According to the Copper Scroll, old Qumran was called Sekhakha." Now, I am quite willing to agree with Wise, Abegg and Cook, that many modern scholars believe Secaca is "the ancient name for the site of Qumran" (The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 193), but the idea that the Copper Scroll says unequivocally that old Qumran was called Secaca is plain nonsense. Nor are such obvious questions as that of the historical authenticity of the texts of Josephus's histories considered. Mr Gardner refers on page 39 to Josephus as providing "a contemporary mention of Jesus outside the Bible", but the texts of Josephus in the form that we possess them went through many generations of scribal hands. There are no editions of Josephus's work that are "contemporary" with Biblical times.
The style of the writing is execrable. The book appears at times to have been translated from the Cantonese by someone with a vague familiarity with English. What is one to make of such sentences as, "In taking such measures, however, John set the old schism on its head - right from the top" (page 23). And who, in heaven's name, is general Pompeii?
In defining allegory, Mr Gardner informs us, "It is a figurative description that relates to the broadcast of an underlying significance or meaning..." What has broadcasting got to do with allegory? And, while allegory could reasonably be described as extended metaphor, why does he then go on to present us, as an example, with a simple metaphor that is anything but extended (Israel's sovereignty as "a growing vine", p. 44)?
If there really are people out there who think that this is what scholarship looks like, then they have my deepest sympathy. The best one can say about Mr Gardner's book is that it tells us nothing, "except that the writer did not have a clue"...
Disjointed, inaccurate and poorly written June 21, 2006
Mr. L. W. Degler (England)
5 out of 8 found this review helpful
I bought this book because I wanted to delve further into some of the ideas explored in "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown. I was looking for a book, however, which didn't claim to be connected to Dan Brown's book, though this sounded an interesting read. I believe I was mistaken and should have paid heed to previous reviewers.
I had to stop reading the book not so far in. Laurence Gardner basically appears to have picked lots of quotes from lots of books and decided that was enough research. I don't mean to sound bitter, but it reminds me of a last-minute school essay where you do just that. To add to this effect, he starts chapters by saying he is going to explain this and that, adding little lines here and there to say he is expanding on "The Da Vinci Code" just to keep the theme going, then wanders completely off the subject and manages a feeble conclusion and proposal of a new chapter by the end.
Futhermore, there is a scandalous amount of misinformation in this book, even in the small part of it that I have read. One prime example is a rather annoying bit which, before I even researched myself, I knew sounded rather fishy. He says at one point that Constantine woke up one morning and decided to create a new religion as a fusion of Christianity and Paganism. It's just written in such a childish manner. In fact, Emperor Constantine called together the Council of Nicaea in order that the people of Rome could vote upon various matters which were causing violent disputes and threatening to tear the city apart. These were such as which gospels would be accepted and which would be rejected, and matters surrounding Jesus including the debate over his divinity.
I'm appalled by this book and I can only see that this author is riding on Dan Brown's wave. Looking at his other books, it seems he has written entirely about conspiracy theories and has found a good way to make money. If you read peoples' comments for yourself, it is apparent that he fabricates a lot of material elsewhere.
|
