This is the second book in the "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" series by Laurence Gardner, and if this review seems similar to the previous one by J.P. Holding - there's a reason for that: Gardner's methodology is essentially the same in both volumes.
The book is introduced by one Nicholas de Vere who has since claimed Gardner swiped the research which went into it. Our author has since abandoned associating with de Vere, which is probably a good move given the latter's occultism (anyone remember his vampire e-text "From Transylvania to Tunbridge Wells"? No? Good, you're better off not knowing...it is rather racist) but to me it just adds to the controversy - and this book is controversial, no doubt about that.
The premise of this work is one of the most outlandish I've ever seen: Adam and Eve were cloned by aliens! Also included: Genesis was inspired by Babylonian creation myths, Moses was Akhenaten, Jesus was an Essene and a Rosicrucian and was (of course) married to Mary Magdalene.
Where does he get these ideas, then? As before, other questionable sources: Baigent and Leigh. Ahmed Osman. Barbara Thiering. Gardner's previous book. Zechariah Sitchin. The latter is the main star this time where Theiring was last time. And yes, Sitchin in the 12th Planet uses some of the same sourcework as Gardner does for the Sumerian-myth-read-into-Genesis arguments, which we refute here.
Amazingly, both Sitchin and Gardner cite Alexander Heidel's work yet ignore it to propose their outdated and refuted [see link just above] Tiamat = deep claim: Sitchin, 229 who gives the opposite view to Heidel - even though he's listed in the bibliography and Gardner, 47, while implied rather than stated, leaves the words dangling before the reader together with accusations of doctrinal suppression. The method of chronologically working backwards towards your key argument is also strikingly reminiscent of Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
Gardner claims that he seeks to find "rational, matter-of-fact explanations" for his arguments [95]; what he means is, if it is supernatural - he ignores as much data he can get away with. An example is found on page 64, where he claims "there is nothing spiritual or ethereal about the word 'angel'" (because the term in Hebrew means "messenger": however, no evidence lexicons were consulted; Vine's Expository Dictionary [pp4-5] for instance adds a supernatural meaning to the human one) - so what about the activities of these beings which proves otherwise?
He gives the example of Genesis 19 (Lot at Sodom) where angels are presented with food. What about where they blind the townsfolk then? (verse 11) What's the "rational" and "matter-of-fact" explanation for this? Actually, Gardner avoids this part of the incident - likely because it would refute the theory he's trying to weave. This is further demonstrated by his calling supernatural events in the narratives of Hagar, Balaam's ass and Manoah "straightforward". He then makes no attempt to discern the difference between these angels sent from God (he calls them "Watchers") and those who are fallen from grace [57-65]. Why would fallen angels protect the righteous?
As with the previous book of the series, it contains some extremely bad arguments. There are semantic equivocations,, such as this: "Belief is the act of be-living, for to be live is to believe, and will is the decisive medium of the self" [sic, p182]. There are anti-church comments, e.g. Cain is "maliciously discredited" (didnt the Jews start that one off, based on Cain's own misbehaviour?); we have Genesis 6 "sons of God"(see here), Noah's flood redated to the time of Adam, God as the cause of evil (see here), avoidance of Jewish views just to be offensive - claiming the Edenic serpent was never seen as dark and sinister - or that Jehovah was a lesser Sumerian god, Adam was a servant like a domestic animal (129) - (what about his being given dominion over the earth?), misrepresenting original sin as sexual behaviour (it is claimed this view was promoted by the church [130], it wasn't - that was a Gnostic view), dualism, Lilith, Count Dracula, fairies, dragons, elves...
At this point I gave up. Of course, de Vere's own Imperial Royal Order is where the book ends up. (Their website, now defunct, was quite happy to accept the claims of the pretender Michael of Albany.)
It isn't even worth trying to make head or tail of this book. Although Gardner does seem to know of and use scholarly works some of the time (though many are outdated) he hasn't grasped their methodology at all - or more likely, doesn't want to.
-"Punkish"