MARY MAGDALENE IS THE HOLY GRAIL
|
|
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
|
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
|
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.
|
|
Disappointing read
|
After having read and enjoyed the Da Vinci code, I was looking forward to looking at some research into the controversial topics behind it. What the book explores well is the art history behind the Da Vinci code and the restoration of Da Vinci's artwork.
However Gardner makes assumptions from Biblical texts and draws conclusions from the gospels that cannot be drawn from them. For example he states that Joanna, Jesus' sister went to the tomb with Mary Magdalene - however nowhere in the four gospels does it actually say that Joanna was Jesus' sister. I read the earlier chapters with Gardner's book in one hand and a Bible in the other but finding myself unable to come to the same conclusions as Gardner from reading the referenced Bible texts. Given this, how many of his other references are as ambiguous as these? I'm afraid I felt his credibility had died at this stage and I approached the rest of the book with scepticism and eventually as a story of a legend. If you're looking for an insight into the legend so ahead and read; if you're looking to explore the evidence behind the legend then this is sadly lacking.
|
|
Excellent research and clear - but too Da Vinci Code Focused
|
|
This is a very good book and should be read by all those researching this topic. It explores the person of Mary Magdalene and presents how frequently she is referred to in gospel texts and non-canonical gospels as well as accepted gospels. Gardener explores the way her position was undermined and throws fascinating light upon the relationship between Mother Mary and Joseph and also Jesus and Mary Magdalene. I felt i had read the same material before though, and checking the references i saw much of this is to be found in Barabara Thiering's 'Jesus the Man'. Many of Gardener's explanations lead to conclusions that make far more sense than if the text is taken literally. What i especially enjoyed was his analysis of the 'turning water in to wine' at the wedding in Canan and also the raising of Lazarus. Again, both these have been examined before by Thiering. What Gardener brings expertise in is his analysis of the art world and also his examination of the lineage of Mary. There were two main things that detracted from the text for me: 1. Reliance on Da Vinci Code reference The book is full of references to the Da Vinci Code. I realise that this book is aimed at those who have just read the novel, but this was done overly so to a point where it feels a cheap marketing gimmick. The design of the cover is all part of this. Constant references are made to the Da Vinci Code and its undermined several times. The Da Vinci Code never claims to be 100% factually accurate - its a fictional story. 2. Jesus in India Appendix Why Gardener included this appendix is very puzzling. He spends 3 pages detailing his view on the 'Jesus in India' theory but makes many factual errors and demonstrates no serious consideration of this theory when writing the body of his text. It seems totally out of place. Either examine the Jesus in India theory or do not mention it at all. Its for these two reasons i haven’t give the book a 5. Its a worthy read and has plenty of information for further research. Recommended.
|
|
|
United States | 
United Kingdom | 
Canada