David Ovason

Ovason is such a strange character. He's obviously smart. He has obviously done extensive research (I'm sure his personal library is amazing). His hypotheses are intriguing.

But his execution is utterly lacking. He never proves his contentions, and, indeed, his examples and evidence are often completely misconstrued in his attempt to confirm his points. His book on Nostradamus, The Secrets of Nostradamus, for instance, promises grand new insights into Nostradamus's prophecies, but only offers show more a new way of interpreting them, not THE way to interpret them (i.e., it is not the key to Nostradamus, but just another way to look at them no different than anyone else's other way to look at them).

Here the contention is that there were two different Jesuses. Based on the differing genealogies in Matthew and Luke, he says that there was a "Solomon Jesus" and a "Nathan Jesus." Out of these two Jesuses, the Solomon Jesus eventually gave his power (?) to the Nathan Jesus, who was then made into the Christ only at the baptism. Ovason also points to the weird double of Jesus that is in the Pistis Sophia, a Gnostic text.

The rest of the book basically tries to show that the two Jesus children are depicted in artworks (illuminations, paintings, sculpture, etc.) from the late classical period through the medieval era to the Renaissance. The problem is that even though Ovason does show some oddities in many obscure works of art, by and large most others can be explained away by conventional means. For instance, medieval illuminations in manuscripts that try to depict two incidents happening over the course of time are interpreted as depicting two separate events happening at the same time, and thus two Jesues. This is just lazy thinking. Conventional images of John the Baptist and Jesus as children are made over into evidence of the conspiracy: they must be two different Jesuses. Worst, artworks depicting putti (the fat babies, sometimes winged, sometimes wingless that are often mistakenly called "cherubs") Ovason tries to make into evidence of the two Jesus children.

Ovason fills his work thick with literature and art that may depict two Jesus children, but never once makes a convincing case. Why you would need two Jesus children in the first place, if only one was to become THE Christ, is never adequately explained. Why Matthew would talk of a "Solomon Jesus" and Luke a "Nathan Jesus" (their differing nativity stories, like their differing genealogies, are evidence, to Ovason, of two different Jesus children) and then devote the rest of their gospels to one Jesus Christ is never adequately explained. The that the person Jesus only became Christ at his baptism, the heresy of adoptionism, is never adequately explained. What conspiracy would lead to hosts of artists over the course of centuries to depict two Jesus children but never ever write about it is never adequately explained.

That, and Christian apologists have, to my mind adequately explained away the supposed contradiction between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.

Aside from the dust jacket, there are no color images. Most of the images are ink-lined redrawings of the works discussed, there are some standard black-and-white reproductions. The work is copiously footnoted, with some interesting digressions. There is no bibliography and no index.

Parts of it are interesting and parts of it make you think, but, in the end, Ovason discusses a lot and proves little. show less

Take a close look: The author has seven non-repeating letters in his name. And his book is about the "dollar bill," which has ten letters. Ten, of course, is 3+7, which makes it even more mysterious. If you can follow this sort of tortured logic, you'll love this book.

The author pays careful details to things most people would overlook: things like how many bricks are on the face of the pyramid (he counts 73, although it's easy to see that there are six more covered by the date), how many show more dots there are over the eagle's head (55), and how many eyes are on the dollar bill (4, 2 on each side). Virtually every number he comes up with -- he often ends up with 1, 3, 7, 10, 13, or 21 -- are all "magical" numbers. But he never tells us why that's important.

Of course, his "analysis" could go on forever. He carefully draws lines on the ascenders and descenders of the "A"s in "AMERICA" to find that they cross in very meaningful places (the center of the eagle's star, for one). But he conveniently forgets to do the same for the "A" in the middle of "STATES." He shows several versions of the Great Seal, and contemplates why the number of arrows and olive branch leaves changes over time, hinting but never quite outlining what nefarious mystery might be behind that. The most reasonable answer seems to be the guy in charge of making the seals probably wanted easy-to-remember numbers of things when he made them, and 13 was America's number (with the 13 colonies and all).

Most of the book deals with the reverse of the dollar bill, and it's easy to wonder about some of the strange stuff that appears there (the "Eye of God," for example, hovering over the unfinished pyramid). This book is strong at pointing those oddities out -- and sometimes they are explained decently, but always with a hint that there are more mysteries as to why they are so. I'll give it points for being a fun, entertaining read, but it loses points for its lack of conspiracy theories that might explain these "secret symbols." show less

If you've ever read a doctoral dissertation - and like it - you're going to love this book - Otherwise run away - Bravely! No this is not for the hat-in -the -cat crowd. Or the spoonerism thereof. Why read it? Because it reveals some very profound secrets - not conspiracy theories - but real secrets that put more flesh on the dry bones of our nation's capital. It's more than you think! I will never go to DC (and I live in the environs) without looking at the sculptural symbols and show more understanding why they are there, who put them there and why one day in August brings the whole picture into focus. Frankly I hated the reading of the book and loved the information. If you are interested in history of this nation give this book a look, then go to DC in August and watch the sunset. You will never see things the same again! show less

This book was, for me, very dense but very exciting reading. I argued with the author 9in my mind) abuot some points and loved most of the rest. I liked that the masons were not presented as "the bad guys".
It sees to me that author Dan Brown mined this book for a lot of his details for "The Lost Symbol" - which is my current read.