GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-03 > 0920644160
Subject: Re: Bloodline of the Holy Grail
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 14:29:20 GMT
In article <>,
(John Lerwill) wrote:
> Thank you for your lengthy response.....I am really very surprised at most
> of your actual comment (though I sympathise with your premise)....You know
> full well that I was illustrating by analogy in much of my posting; perhaps
> I should have chosen more clear examples. I certainly have no inclination
> to accept what comes without question (which is what you seem to purport).
> Your points are rather lengthy so I shall put a lot of it on one side with
> just the observation that you seem to be one of those that follow only one
> form of logic - the deductive type. In its place, it is an entirely
> relevant mode of thinking, but when we come to more grey areas, it has its
> limitations. Students of logic will know that deductive logic is only one
> component of the subject.
> Just to remark that the Vatican library is well known for its content of
> multifarious works, but also.....
> At 11:45 3/3/99 -0500, "Todd A. Farmerie" <> wrote, in
> reply to my earlier comment:
> >> The ideas about the Merovingians and Stewarts have been around for some
> >> time now - see "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" published ca. 1990 - and
> >> subsequent material.
> >Yes, and it was wrong then too. There is not a single line of descent
> >from the Merovingians that can be documented and proven - NOT ONE. When
> >it comes to the Holy Blood, Holy Grail version, it can be shown to be
> >false, based on the surviving contemporary record. That was pointed out
> >when it was published, and no new documents have surfaced which change
> >that conclusion.
> You say "it was wrong then too...". O.K., wrong in the context of the modes
> that genealogists use, and the evidence that you currently accept,
> perhaps.....but the whole subject is not just about genealogy. It is about
> a subject that, manifestly, begged a question, and the original authors on
> the subject seem to acquit themselves very well. Their main cause was to
> try to follow the smoke back to the fire....rightly, they assumed that
> there must have been a cause for a certain situation to exist, and in the
> well-known context of a freemason-like structure. That there might be some
> doubt about the genealogical issues, I am willing to accept at this stage,
> but I am still willing to keep my mind open that some error has existed in
> the hitherto accepted evidence.
And exactly how would that relate to accepting any part of the innumerous
claims made in the book. Could you please specify?
> To give an example on this......in my own family, several researchers,
> including professionals, came to independent conclusions that a Richard was
> the father of John, Mary and Susan, according to a 17th c. will. This
> "truth" was accepted for MANY years, until I found a Lease that referred to
> the same John, Mary and Susan and which specifically showed Thomas to be
> the father, not Richard. On going back to the will, it transpired that the
> reference that gave rise to the misunderstanding was indeed ambiguous, and
> most likely referred to the testator's wife's father...!!!!
Sure, and similar examples are well-known by most genealogists and other
historians. But what is the meaning in relation to the claims under
consideration? Should we accept a newly postulated claim, based only on the
most absurd assumptions, just because what ex ante was accepted *could* be
wrong? I don't get it.
> >> Aren't Egyptologists equally upset when their "known facts" about the age
> >> of the Sphynx and The Ghiza Pyramids are challenged.....even though
> >> scientific evidence seems to "prove" that the Sphynx is some 6,000 years
> >> older than hitherto thought?
> >No, they are upset when someone with no training and no evidence decides
> >what would make a good story, and publicizes it to the popular audience
> >which doesn't have the knowledge base to recognize it for the fraud that
> >it is. "Known facts" are challenged and revised all the time, but with
> >evidence, not with unsubstantiated claims.
> O.K., in principle I am broadly quite happy with this - I would be foolish
> not to be! (I assume you are referring back to the Holy Blood issue
> here....the Sphynx bit, was, of course, an analogy, but a case of accepted
> "fact" being seriously challenged). I feel, however, that no material
> should be castagated in the fashion it was without being perfectly sure
> about the context in which it was written, and respect for the honest
> questions raised. The subject-matter is one that requires very close
> scrutiny in its totality, not piecemeal. AND we must surely accept that
> conventionally accepted evidence MIGHT be wrong....I'm also not sure about
> the "someone with no training..." bit in respect of this author.....
> As a respected computer professional of some 30 years standing, I am the
> least likely to be accused of illogical thinking in my approach - O.K.,
> but I'm not perfect !! :-). I stand by what I said in my former posting.
And what exactly would that be? That an unproven line of descent should be
accepted because someone else wrote it should be? That the existence and
travels of a Jesus and a Joseph, unknown in contemporary sources, should be
accepted because someone else said so?
The book is a piece of trash and it should be treated as such.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own