The Search for the Holy Grail
By Merlyn
If you are looking for adventure and an Indiana Jones experience then you had better pass this document up and find something more to your liking.
This is a serious look at the evidence available on the location of the world's most prized archeological artifact, the Holy Grail.
The search for the Grail begins with Joseph of Arimathea.
The Bible is not very clear on whom Joseph is but there are a few things that we do know for certain and therefore are established as fact.
Joseph was a wealthy businessman in the city of Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion of Christ.
He provided the room where Jesus and the apostles met for the Last Supper.
He is mentioned as a secret supporter of Jesus and possibly a benefactor.
He approached Pilate and requested that the body of Jesus be given to him from the cross at a time when only family had the right to take possession of a body that had been crucified.
He offered and provided his own personal tomb for Jesus to be laid out in.
That he cared for the followers of Jesus after the crucifixion.
He left the city after the resurrection in fear of reprisals from Rome.
He was called by St. Mark and St. Luke a "Bouleutes" or senator, which means he was a member of the Jewish council, called the Sanhedrin and therefore should have been part of the group that voted to have Jesus arrested.
This is what is known of him from the sacred texts but there may be some confusion and here we will attempt to clear that up.
We must first establish the fact that Joseph of Arimathea was not Joseph the Carpenter the father of Christ. And this is rather easy to do.
The bible is very clear on Joseph the Carpenter. He was a master builder and architect and a man of many years when he married the Virgin Mary. Careful study of the Bible will show that he was not really in favor of the marriage originally and approached the town council to try and back out of it. During the council meeting it was agreed that he was the only person of note, worthy of the arrangement and he was eventually convinced to proceed with the marriage.
This was obviously an arranged marriage as many of the time were. This is totally in character for the customs of the time. A young woman of quite possibly a good background was paired up with the best possible candidate. The candidate would be a man who is established and well thought of in the community and hopefully prosperous.
Since Joseph was already an established builder and architect he was not a young man. He would have had to serve an apprenticeship of many years under a master carpenter and later would have had to establish himself as a carpenter in his own right before being able to earn the title of Master Carpenter. This would have taken him into his late twenties or early thirties and a time when he would have taken a wife. It would have been extremely unusual for Joseph to reach old age unmarried and this would surely have been mentioned in the Bible.
This posses several solutions the first being that Joseph was unmarried and his first marriage was to the Virgin Mary. This is the most unlikely for the reasons stated above.
The second is the possibility that Joseph was already married and he took a second wife. Again I feel that the Bible would have mentioned this. There does though lie the possibility that this fact was recorded at one time or another in the documents possessed and known of by the Roman Catholic Church. And during the periods of reformation the church may have decided that this fact did not hold well with the dogma of the church. It would thus have been surpressed and eliminated as if it never was in the attempt to perpetuate the churches image of the lives of the Holy Family. This does not seem likely though with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These documents hidden until the present age would never have been available to the church for alteration and there is no mention in the Scrolls of the fact that Joseph had another wife.
This brings us to the third and most possible solution. Joseph had married when younger and most likely had a family by this woman. This may be the answer to the question of where the brothers and sisters of Jesus came from. The woman most probably succumbed to death by disease or natural causes as was quite common in the time. Living conditions were certainly not of the standards of today and death was a common every day event. In fact Joseph may have been considered old by the time he hit his late forties or early fifties. The average life expectancy was around 45 years of age at the time. And women, being almost beast of burden at the time, would not have lived as long as the men would.
When faced with these options I am forced to choose the third as the most possible. It is not something we will ever be fully know unless some unknown document surfaces in the future to correct this information.
Jesus died at the approximate age of 38-9. The dates of Jesus' birth and death are a continuing bone of contention amongst scholars. They can agree with in a few years but they are not settled on the exact dates. Part of this problem was instigated with the intervention of the Gregorian Calendar and the adjusting of our present time scale to have the year Zero as the birth of Christ. Putting all arguments asides we can be certain that the new calendar dates are fairly close to accurate.
If Joseph the Carpenter had lived till the death of his son he would have been between 83 and 93 years of age. An extremely long time and worthy of mention in the Bible, but there is no mention of him reaching this advanced age.
It is more likely that Joseph the Carpenter died in his late fifties or sixty's when Jesus was still a young boy. This may also explain the lack of information in the Bible of the "Lost Years of Jesus" as they are called. Mary, having just lost her husband, may have sent Jesus some place to be tutored and educated.
Now Joseph of Arimathea was described as a successful businessman and there is no mention of the fact that he was of great age. Considering the length of time he lived after the death of Christ it is fair to assume that he was middle aged at the time of the crucifixion.
It is here we must consider the age of the Virgin Mary, women of the time tended to marry rather young by our standards. It was quite common of the time for a girl to be married at the age of puberty or around the age of 14-18. This would have made Mary around the age of her mid-twenties at the death of her husband.
She would have been a prime catch at the time being young and with more than likely a healthy inheritance from her husband. The possibility of her remaining unmarried would have been slim.
This is the point where I will probably upset a lot of people and lose some of the readers. For here is where I break with accepted tradition and it may offend some very religious people who believe that everything is written in the Bible.
Joseph of Arimathea holds an important position of note in the crucifixion of Christ.
Joseph is mentioned many times in the company of the Virgin Mary and other members of Jesus' family. He approached Pilate and requested the body of Jesus, which by law could only be claimed by a family member. Why did Pilate release the remains of Jesus into the hands Joseph if he were not related? This has been a question that has been rarely asked and hardly ever answered.
I am proposing here that Pilate gave the body of Jesus to Joseph because he was family, he was Jesus' stepfather.
This would explain the lending of the room for the Last Supper and the placing of Jesus' body in his own tomb, which was usually reserved for family members. It would also explain why Joseph took the Virgin Mary and other members of Jesus' family with him when he fled the city.
He had no obligation to provide these things if he were not family and considering the political tension of the time. And considering the fact that all the disciples denied Christ and fled the city, it would have been literal suicide for him to have aligned himself with this rebellious sect in such a way.
He would have been giving up everything he owned and his reputation in the eyes of the Romans for a man he barely knew, unless he was his stepfather.
He may have considered it part of the obligation of marrying Mary to support and protect the family she already had. Or he may have been just a devote follower of Christ. This would have been seen as a great quality that the church later exploited or atleast the image of it.
What better way to portray the lengths that His followers would have gone to than a wealthy businessman who gives up everything and risks his life to follow Christ.
I feel that if this were the case, the disciples would have written more of the story of Joseph and what he did after the death of Christ but his part in the play of the crucifixion is where the information of Joseph ends. He is not mentioned in the Bible again.
Here begins the story of the Holy Grail and the other items attributed to Jesus. For it is rumored that when Joseph of Arimathea left the Holy Land and ventured forth into the world he took several items with him.
The first and most important is the Holy Grail. Now no one is quite sure exactly what the Grail is or what it looks like.
It may have been the cup that Jesus drank from and offered to the disciples at the Last Supper. Or, the cup that held the vinegar wine that was given to him on the cross. Or the cup that is said to have caught his blood as it flowed from his body.
Now some may question the fact that a cup was used to catch His blood or why anyone would do that. You have to understand the Jewish religion a bit here. In the Jewish religion the body is sacred and the blood being part of the body it is also considered to be sacred. If a man were killed tradition says that as much of his blood is to be gathered and buried with him as is possible.
You will see this tradition still being carried out today on your television sets. Many times on the evening news you will see the results of a suicide bombing with its carnage. In the background you will see men in Hasidic garb on their hands and knees. They are using sponges to soak up as much blood of the victims as they can so it may be buried with them. It is not for looks or sanitation, it is an age-old tradition, it would be much easier and simpler to take a fire hose and wash the street down but that is contrary to Jewish tradition. That will be done after as much blood has been collected as is possible.
What would the Grail look like? This is something of a mystery as well. It is doubtful that it was an object of beauty or value as it was simply a cup to drink from and at the time no one knew what importance it would have in the future so it is very unlikely that it was very ornate. Especially since Jesus preached that personal possession were of only earthly value. He, it is my guess, would have been outraged if a very expensive cup were used at the dinner as it would go against all he believed in and who in their right mind would take a valuable cup into a thronging mass of people at a crucifixion? The place would have been crawling with thieves and robbers all come to see those who were caught punished.
The Nanteo's Cup, guarded presently by the Powell family in Wales.
No the cup would have been a simple standard cup of the day as used by the masses. This would have made it wooden or clay in nature. It would not have been glass as this was a prized commodity and used only by the rich and wealthy.
It may have been covered in precious metals and jewels later on but it began life as a simple drinking vessel.
Now this brings to light one more piece of evidence in favor of Joseph being Jesus' stepfather. Why would he be allowed to leave the city with such precious items? Would not the disciples have been the most likely ones to secure and hold these sacred relics?
There is no mention of the items in the Bible and the disciples in their writings give them no importance or mention. Is this because they knew they had no rights to the articles, as they would be family heirlooms? Or is it that they never existed in the first place?
Legend though lives longer and stronger than fact and the legend of the Holy Grail is as popular today as it was in the Middle Ages.
What we do know is that every account of Joseph leaving the Holy Land contains the statement that he took items of Jesus with him but besides the cup what else did he take?
Considering the methods of travelling in those days and the expense, the items were more than likely small and easily hidden and carried. They would have to be hidden for the Romans were out to crush the followers of Jesus and any items attributed to him would be considered relics and therefore wanted for destruction by the Roman government.
After careful research and consideration I have narrowed down what I think those items were.
First was the Holy Grail. Second might have been the shroud that was left in the tomb after the resurrection. And thirdly atleast one of the nails that held Christ on the cross.
These items are based on historical legends. The Holy Grail, the Shroud of Turin and every one has heard atleast one story of some item being made from one of the nails of the cross. So these items seem to have been accepted as having survived.
There are also legends of the robe that the centurions cast dice on at the foot of the cross and the lance that pierced the side of Christ how could I ever forget the numerous pieces of the original cross. If all the pieces of the cross were gather and placed together there would be enough wood to build a house let alone a simple cross. Given the deterioration factor and the dubious origin of most of these pieces of wood, I feel it is safe to say that none of them are the true relic.
Yet none of the legends of the robe and the lance or the wood is taken as seriously as the cup and the shroud and the nails. They seem to have more origins in legend and fact than the others do.
All the accounts state that Joseph left Jerusalem with the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene and several others. Just who these others were does not seem to be agreed upon. We have a detailed list of these people from the Welsh Chronicles and the Llandaff Charters but the group made one stop before arriving in England and the cast of characters may have changed slightly.
It is known that the first place the group went after leaving the Holy Land was southern France. To an area some where around the city of Carcassone which later became the center of the Carthar religion. There are some rumors and legends that the area was Italy but why would Joseph go to the heart of the country that was hunting him and the others? The legends of his travel too southern France makes much more sense.
There is one other location that is possible, the town now known as Rennes Le Chateau or known at the time as Readdy. At the time of the voyage of Joseph Readdy was a thriving city of the same size and importance as Carcassone. It remained a well-fortified and defended town even when the size of the city diminished. It does not hold that import a position on the land that would make it the stronghold it became, so there was some other reason that the cities defenses were so formidable.
Rennes Le Chateau has been of intense study and interest since a poor and penniless priest suddenly began to spend money as if there were no end to it.
In the late 1800's Father Berenger Sauniere was said to have found some scrolls hidden in the Alter during renovations to his chapel. Over night he went from pauper to prince. He suddenly began doing massive amounts of construction in the church and the town. He spent millions of Francs to the tune of 250 Million Francs in today's market. Where did this money come from? That is the question that everyone has been trying to answer for over a hundred years.
What ever he found had immense value. One of the items of Christ or maybe a written record of the events of the visit of Joseph and the group may be the answer. It is possible that Joseph visited Rennes Le Chateau and left some thing or some one there. Until this mystery is solved the truth will only be known to a few.
The accepted date the group arrived is 37-38 AD and contrary to popular myth and legend the documents do not show them landing in the marshes of Glastonbury called Avalon.
We can approximate the date of their arrival fairly well because it is said that they arrived in "the last year of Tiberius". Since Tiberius died on the 16th of March in 36 AD then giving a two year span for discrepancies in accuracy will bring us to 37-38 AD.
The Llandaff Charters (a historical record of the lineage of the Welsh Kings and property originated and held in the Cathedral of Llandaff) and the Welsh Chronicles both show Joseph and his party landing at Llantwit Major. This is a small town on the coastline of Wales near the present-day city of Cardiff.
We only have copies of the Llandaff Charters from these times for the original was taken to Rome by Bishop Urban in the 12 century and should still remain in the archives of the Vatican, but there it is obtainable only by the clergy.
It is after their arrival that Joseph stops being referred to by his Jewish name and is called Ilid or "the Israelite" in the Old Welsh language. The church later makes him St. Ilid.
All of the legends from the Middle Ages beginning with Geoffrey of Monmouth in approx. 900-1000 AD state that Joseph arrived in Briton at Glastonbury, through the swampy glades known as Avalon or Avalonia. This would have been quite a trick as Glastonbury is a fair distance from the sea and travel through a shallow swamp by a boat large enough to navigate the Atlantic Ocean would have been almost impossible. The swamp was so shallow that it has since dried up. Glastonbury is totally land locked, with no sign of a swamp ever having existed.
Legend has it that it is here that Joseph built the first Christian church. Archeology does not support this theory though. There have been no artifacts or any findings of habitation in the area prior to approx. 900 AD. The ruins of Glastonbury Abbey date back to around this period, but no evidence of any earlier buildings or structures or settlements pre-date this. There is simply nothing to base this legend on.
Llantwit Major on the other hand was inhabited many hundreds of years before the arrival of the group. There is archeological evidence that shows man has inhabited this area known as the Gower Peninsular since 250,000 BC and established settlements around 25,000 BC. So the old idea that "Wales was settled by the Irish or the Celts" is wrong, man settled in the South of Wales long before either came into existence.
Researchers and authors Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett have proposed a revolutionary idea. They contend that the Welsh were originally the descendants of the 10 Tribes of Israel. Wales in the Old Welsh language is called Khymry and the inhabitants the Khymry, which is also the name given to one of the 10 Tribes of Israel by Assyrian Emperors in the Archives at Nineva. I advise any one who is interested to read the works of these two authors as they make a very good case for their argument.
It was by no error that the group landed here as the area was a center of learning and knowledge. The Druids had long before established two of there biggest and best universities in the cities of Llantwit Major and Caerleon. This fact is recorded in the Welsh Triads.
Do not know the scale of the map but the distance between Newport and Cardiff is 12 miles approximately.
It is generally agreed that the group that landed here consisted of following.
-Joseph of Arimathea
-Mary the Mother of Christ
-Mary Magdalene, who was a half cast and might have been the wife of Jesus.
-Cyndaf, who is thought to be St. Peter and his son St. Mawon.
-There is also a person simply known as Anna. It is thought that she was some relation to Jesus possibly his sister. The really outside guess and totally unacceptable by the church would be that she is the daughter of Mary Magdalene and Jesus.
All the others (at least six) vary in name in different documents. It should be noted that all the people except Anna would later be made Saints. Anna would go on to marry a Welsh Prince and set the foundation of the royal families of Wales and England.
We have established the fact that Joseph of Arimathea did come to Wales but what happened to the Holy Grail?
There are only two possibilities. The first is that Joseph left it at Rennes Le Chateau. The second is that he brought it with him and since most legends attest to this we will assume that the Grail was in Llantwit Major at one time or another.
After establishing his church Joseph was taken to meet the local King, a man named in the Welsh Triads as Gweirydd. He was given 12 skins or parcels of land as his own. This land was known as Afallach, Aballach, Ynys Wydrin, Ynys Avalon, or Glastennen depending on which version of the records you read.
You can see from these names where the legend of Glastonbury probably came from. Ynys Avalon means the Isle of Avalon but the word Ynys is not confined to just describing an island. A point of land sticking out into a body of water can also be described as being a Ynys. It may also be a spiritual reference as in an Island of faith.
And the name Glastennen is very close to Glastonbury and could be confused over the years.
The whole key to finding the Grail lies in finding the real location of this land for it is here that Joseph set up house keeping for a number of years and most probably hid the Grail there.
The land is not in or around Glastonbury. This was a local Welsh King giving out Welsh land in his territory it could not have been further East than the present day city of Newport or further North than Liverpool. It is somewhere in Wales.
It is said that Joseph, upon his death, was laid under the floor of Glastonbury Church. Since we know that this could not be so for the church would not be built for 700 years after his death, I will venture to say that the remains of Joseph may lie under Llandaff Cathedral.
Unfortunately there is not even a legend to make this claim so I have nothing except my own hunch to back this up.
This is where my search ends for I am not able to verify the burial site of Joseph and I feel that an artifact as valuable as the Grail would not have gone too far from his side.
My suggestion friends, is that the hunt for the Grail begins at Llandaff Cathedral.
The Search for the Holy Grail Part II
By Merlyn
Now some people may think that I kind of left the reader in a lurch by ending the last piece so abruptly and with out a real solution. I mean the title of the article was "The Search for the Holy Grail" and to the lay person there did not seem to be much of a search.
Well people, that is how real investigations go. So much of the work to solving a mystery or finding the solution to an answer is basic boring background searching.
Thousands and thousands of hours of bending over old manuscripts and checking the research of others that have gone before you go before the actual physical trip to the field.
When you have accumulated all your information then you must put it all together in some sort of method that makes sense and hopefully you can then make a timeline and maybe even a map and follow the progress through out the ages of the object you search.
I feel that with out a doubt I have proven that Joseph of Arimathea brought the Holy Grail to Briton.
That is stage one of the investigation. I have proved provenance, now where exactly is the Grail now?
Geoffrey of Monmouth is our first and best source for information about the Grail for he mentions that the Legendary King Arthur sought it.
The problem with Geoffrey's accounts is that he wrote them so long after the events may have happened. He does not mention any reference material he used to gain the information and when compared to other accounts of King Arthur it is apparent that some of it may have been the result of his imagination.
The real King Arthur is a combination of two great Welsh Kings as described in the book "The Holy Kingdom" by Adrian Gilbert. I advise anyone who is interested to purchase this book for it is a wealth of information.
Getting beyond King Arthur to the question where is the Grail now? We must make some concessions and begin by accepting a few things without resources to back them up. We are talking about hunches and "what ifs" here.
Now Arthur sends knights out searching for the Holy Grail which means that he did not know where it was either. The story goes that the Grail was stolen and taken to a castle some where and only the worthy have a chance of finding it.
If the Grail were stolen from its rightful keeper I am sure there would have been a hue and cry that would have been recorded by one of the historical records, but there isn't.
It is my suggestion that the Grail was given for safe keeping to some one or some group at a time when it was thought that a foreign attacker may enter the country of Wales and do it harm.
Now this theory has one major problem to it. Wales was never full conquered by any of the invading groups.
The Romans couldn't do it and they tried several times. The Vikings could only get a toe hold around the edges of the country and the Anglo-Saxons probably came closer than any one but still could not penetrate the interior hill country.
The original home of the Grail and of Christianity, Llandaff and the Cardiff area, was taken over by all of the above groups and they do not claim to have found the Grail so it is safe to assume that it was spirited away before they arrived.
There is an area that has always been connected with stories of the Grail castle and of Joseph and that is the mountainous Lake District north of Cardiff. This was also the legendary home of Merlyn the court Magician of Arthur.
Now Merlyn was to have lived in a cave on the side of Newais Mountain, which is in the Brecon Forrest. This is the heart of the Hill country and there are still many places that are can only be reached on foot. Is the Grail hidden in a cave near here? Only the person that hid it knows the truth.
This area may also be the site of the land given to Joseph and if so would be a natural hiding place for the Grail.
My research has led me to believe that the Grail was given to the Sisters of Avalon for safe keeping for they were also the keepers of the sword Caliburn that became Excaliber. It is said that the Lady of the Lake was the one who gave Excaliber back to Arthur after he broke it and received it again when Percival threw it into the lake. The legendary name of this woman is Eurgaine and it is rather a coincidence that when Joseph started his own college of learning that he called it Caer Eurgaine.
Let me digress here a little and give you some more background information on the swords Caliburn and Excaliber, for these items are also associated with Joseph of Arimathea.
Legend has it that while Joseph was at the court of the King the land came under the threat of a great dragon. A call went out for a hero to come forward to slay the dragon and save the Kingdom.
The only person said to have answered the call was the Kings son and the future husband of Anna who had come to Briton with Joseph. The name of this hero was Gweirydd.
As Gweirydd prepared for the battle against the dragon Joseph went to the ironworkers and had them make him a sword for Gweirydd to carry. It is said that with the metallurgic knowledge of the Druids and one of the nails from the cross of Christ they forged a weapon like none that had ever been seen before. A sword of such strength and durability that it could split stone.
And when Joseph gave the sword to Gweirydd he also gave him a shield of white with a blood red cross upon it and a mantle with the same emblem on it to be worn over his chest. This was to show the true meaning of his heart so all would know that he fought in the name of God and Jesus.
Now this legend sounds an awful lot like the story of St. George the dragon slayer but is told in the Welsh Triads many years before it is written else where.
Since the accuracy of the Welsh Triads has been very good then it may be a true account of an actual event.
The sword Caliburn became a sign that the rightful owner was the true King of Britons. This artifact would have been passed down from King to King and would eventually be given to King Arthur.
Or, and here is the "what if" part, it may have been in safe keeping with the Sisters of Avalon to be given to the rightful King at a time of need.
All the tales and legends of Arthur say that upon his death the sword Excaliber was placed back in the hands of the Lady of the Lake. Since we know now that the Lady and the Sisters of Avalon are one and the same it can now be assumed that they hold not only the Holy Grail but also the sword of Arthur and the rightful King of Briton.
This is an immense responsibility and with the coming of the dark ages and the period of strife and the unsettled situation of the land of Briton it would not be a great step to imagine that the Sisters put the sword and the Grail in hiding for safe keeping.
Who were these Sisters of Avalon? And did they really exist?
The Sisters of Avalon were the female counterpart of the Druids.
The Druid religion was a male oriented religion, a matriarchy, that means no women allowed.
The Sisters of Avalon were the same religion basically except modified for only women.
As for whether they existed or not is easily answered.
The Romans decided that all their troubles in Briton were caused by the devotion of the Welsh Kings to the Druids and they would have to be eradicated to ease the taking of Wales.
In 70 AD the Romans caught almost the entire Druid population of priests on the Island of Holy Head off the West Coast of Wales. It was their plan to massacre them where they stood.
The Druids stood on the shores of the Island facing the mainland and watched the Romans load their boats.
As they waited a group of women all dressed in black came rushing out of the bushes beside them and ran along the beach in front of the Druids cursing and throwing taunts at the Romans.
This has been verified by Roman accounts of the event.
The sight of these women scared the Legions to the point that they had to be beaten into their boats by their commanding officers.
The Romans did eventually cross to the Island and slaughtered the Druids. Little is said of what happened to the women in black but it is rumored that they remained on the Island after the Romans left and buried the bodies of their brother Druids.
So we have a historical record of a group of women in black that tried to protect the Druids. This could only be the Sisters of Avalon.
But why would the Grail be given to a group of Pagan worshipers?
Here is where history fails us. The Druids were closely associated with Joseph of Arimathea; in fact they took him in and helped him build his first church. They even had him teach the word of Jesus at their college.
You see the Druid religion was very close to the beliefs of the Christians. It is not so much that they were "converted" to Christianity as the two religions naturally melted together and became one.
The Druids had long ago established a set pattern for their services and the Christians actually adopted many of their habits.
The making of the sign of the cross is an adaptation of the Druid Rite of Three rays. Both involve the motioning of the open hand in the air drawing the image on an imaginary canvas.
The entire church service as we know it is also a direct adaptation of the Druid service. The singing of songs of praise, the preaching of the sermon, the candles and incense and the recounting of localized events in the community. All of these things were Druidic holdovers from ancient rites and ceremonies.
The Sisters of Avalon being the counterpart of the Druids would naturally make the same changes. Also did you ever wonder where the idea for the black flowing robes of the nuns habit came from? This was the normal attire of the Sisters of Avalon and was probably adopted by the church. Also where did the idea that men and women in religion should be segregated come from? Seems funny that the Druids and the Sisters already had this idea in place when the Christians came along.
In reality by the time that Joseph would need to have the Grail protected for eternity the Christian church and the Druids and Sisters of Avalon had unified and become one. So the sisters of Avalon were not a pagan group but a branch of the Christian religion.
This may also account for the stories and the legends that the Grail is protected by a group of women. Or atleast held in a castle occupied by women.
It would also account for the fact that only the pure and faith full can have access to the Grail. For if the Sisters of Avalon hold the Grail, then they would be very careful of who gets to see it and handle it. They would make darn sure that the person seeking the Grail is worthy and a true follower.
I feel that I have proved my reasons for believing that the Grail and the sword called Caliburn or Excaliber are in the hands of the descendants of the sisters of Avalon. So this answers the question "who are the keepers of the Grail" but not where it is.
There is one line of thought that states that the Grail, the sword and the Arch of the Covenant are hidden in the Scottish church of Roselyn and this would follow the correct pattern of being in the hands of protectors of the faith.
The only problem I find with this concept is that I can establish no connection at any time of the Sisters of Avalon with Roselyn Chapel.
In fact after the sword is returned to the Lady of the Lake (around 495 AD) all reference of the Sisters of Avalon disappear from history.
And here is where my research has bogged down. I will be, in the near future, trying to get a complete history of Llandaff Cathedral and floor plans if they are available. I will go over ever thing that is known and is written about this place. It may prove to be valuable in the search for the Grail.
I also hope to take a journey to Llandaff and Llantwit Major in the future and actually walk in the steps of these famous people. Please wish me luck for if I come upon new information I will print it here.
The Search for the Holy Grail Part III
By Merlyn
In the first of two articles I tried to establish the provenance of the
Holy Grail and the possibility that it was brought to Wales with Joseph of
Arimathea. In the second article I try to establish who the possible
keepers of the Grail could be. In this article I will try and establish the
site of the grave of Joseph of Arimathea.
What I write is compiled from a vast amount of resources, nothing,
except where I have noted, is conjecture.
Historical records are evidence acceptable in any court of law. I have
gathered and presented this evidence with the concept that this is the
equivalent to a court and that the jury is of a much larger scale.
I do not have to convince 12 men and women, I have to convince the entire electronic world. So my sources and evidence must be well documented
and known.
I ended the last article stating that to locate the grave of Joseph of
Arimathea was very important in finding the present location of the
Holy Grail. I state this for the simple reason that the Grail may never have
left his possession. The following reference explains why.
This passage has come down to us from Maelgwyn of Llandaff, the uncle
of St. David, circa 450 AD;
'Joseph ab Arimathea nobilis decurio in insula Avallonia cum xi. Sociis
suis somnum cepit perpetuum et jacet in meridiano angulo lineae bifurcate
Oratorii Adorandae Virginis. Habit enim secum duovascula argentea alba
cruore et sudore magni prophetae Jesu perimpleta.'
'Joseph of Arimathea, the noble decurion (town councilor) received his
everlasting rest with his eleven associates in the Isle of Avalon. He
lies in the southern angle of the bifurcated line of the Oratorium of the
Adorable Virgin. He has with him the two white vessels of silver which
were filled with the blood and the sweat of the great prophet Jesus.'
This quote states that Joseph was buried with two silver vessels
containing the sweat and blood of Christ. If these precious items were entombed
with him then why not the Grail?
The problem with this theory is that this quote makes no mention of the
Grail. After being specific enough to give the location of the burial
site, He lies in the southern angle of the bifurcated line of the
Oratorium of the Adorable Virgin it fails to make any note of the Grail at all.
Lets extend this theory a little further though, and here I go again
with the 'what if.' What if the keepers of the Grail remained close to
Joseph during his lifetime?
This would actually make good sense for he would know that the Grail
was safe and in good hands and it would be easily available to him if he
wished to see it.
So this puts a member or members of the Sisters of Avalon, or who ever
are the keepers of the Grail, in and around the hierarchy of the Christian
church.
This would mean that the Grail would remain within the church itself.
Being possessed by those who cared for it.
This is not a new concept for most of the legends mention the existence
of a group that guarded the Grail. I have answered who this group was to my
own satisfaction and I hope yours as well.
My quandary is which of the many churches founded by Joseph and his
followers is he buried in?
My first and most likely suggestion would be the church that gained the
most acclaim and importance and this is undoubtedly Llandaff Cathedral.
Llandaff Cathedral was the first church in Briton to be designated a
Cathedral and the first of only three to be granted an Archbishop.
There is one point that has me confused; Llandaff is the only church in
Wales that I can find that is NOT named after a Saint, it is named
after the area it is situated in. This is out of the norm for the period. What
should be noted though is that very important religious sites in Briton
usually are named after the area and not a person. Take Westminster Abbey and
Glastonbury Abbey as examples. They still remain very important to the
English people. Now each of them has sections of their churches named
after persons or events but as a whole it is the site that is important and
not the name. Using this example it explains why Llandaff is named because
of the importance of the site.
Now I know I am going to hear all sorts of noise from the publication
of these articles for I have tread on many a toe, but these ideas are not
new. I have not made a claim here that has not been made before.
As an example I offer the following reference:
Llanilid - Extracts from "A Topographical Dictionary of Wales"
by Samuel Lewis 1833.
"LLANILID (LLAN-ILID), a parish in the hundred of COWBRIDGE, county of
GLAMORGAN, SOUTH WALES, 4 miles (N. by W.) from Cowbridge, containing 119 inhabitants. The name of this place is derived from the dedication of its church to St. Ilid (Joseph), an Israelite, who, having embraced Christianity, is said to have accompanied Bran ab Llyr, the deposed prince of Siluria, from
Rome, about the year 70, for the purpose of introducing the Christian faith
into Britain. The parish is situated under the lofty ridge which extends from east to west through the county, and on the east bank of the river Ewenny, which has
its source in the vicinity, and joins the Ogmore near its influx into the
Bristol channel. The surrounding scenery is pleasingly diversified, and
the higher grounds command some fine views over the channel and the
adjacent country. The land is all enclosed, and by far the greater part is in a
state of good cultivation. Coal abounds in the parish, and in the northern
part of it have been discovered some strata, which are about to be worked.
The living is a discharged rectory, with the perpetual curacy of
Llanharan consolidated, in the archdeaconry and diocese of Llandaf, rated in the
king's books at £7. 15. 7 1/2., and in the patronage of the King, as
Prince of Wales. The church is an ancient edifice, possessing no architectural
claims to notice. Mr. Charles Price, about the year 1703, bequeathed £ 50; and Mr. William Thomas, in 1737, bequeathed £ 10, the interest of which, together with that of several smaller benefactions, amounting in the whole to about £
120, is annually distributed among the poor. At the distance of about thirty yards to the north of the church are the remains of an ancient encampment, of which neither the origin nor the history is known. The average annual expenditure for the support of the poor is £ 90. 12."
Now this article makes note of the origins of the church and its
reference to St. Ilid or Joseph is of prime importance. The dates may be off and
some of the details clouded but it shows that in 1833 it was an accepted
fact that Joseph did come to Briton and did build churches.
We can go back a little further and read the quotes of Martin of
Louvain in his 'Disputoilis Anglis it Gallioe in Councilio Constantiano' of
1517.
'Three times the antiquity of the British church was affirmed in
Ecclesiastical Councilia. 1. The Council of Pisa, AD 1417; 2. The
council of Constance, AD 1419; 3. Council of Siena, AD 1423. It was stated that
the British Church took precedence over all other churches, being founded
by Joseph of Arimathea, immediately after the Passion of Christ.'
So it is quite clear by this reference that the Roman Catholic Church
clearly states that the churches founded by Joseph of Arimathea should
be placed above all other churches in importance.
Llandaff Cathedral may not have been the first church established by
Joseph but it grew very quickly to be the most important. The simple answer to
the question of why, may be the converting to Christianity of the Welsh
King Arviragus (Gweirydd) and his marriage to Anna.
Llandaff was probably closer to his court and would be the church the
King attended.
That there was a close association of the Royal Family and the Church
is now apparent. With the King converting and marrying one of the group that
came with Joseph the two became inseparable.
This does not appear to be an arranged marriage either. This appears to
be a marriage of love and mutual acceptance. The couple would go on to have
children and begin the only Royal lineage that can claim a direct
connection with Jesus.
It is for all these reasons that Llandaff became the seat of
Christianity for all of Briton and the world.
Now it is claimed in legend but I can find no documents to back it up,
that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Llandaff. This may be a claim that
remains unproven but I feel it is highly likely to be true.
Cyndaf (Peter) as he is called in the Welsh Triads arrived with Joseph
and brought with him his son Mawon.
Now the major question in my mind was why was Joseph not made the first
Bishop, as he was the leader of this group.
I came to the conclusion, after reviewing all my information on Joseph,
that he had no desire to be the man out front and seen as the spiritual
leader of the group.
While Jesus was alive he remained in the background doing what he could
to advance the presence of the group from his hidden position. He appears
to be unwilling to accept the huge responsibility that the position brings
with it. He is quite happy being in the shadows of greatness.
Peter was a natural preacher who could hold the attention of large
crowds with ease. I feel that Joseph put aside his own feelings of importance
and placed Peter at the head of the group for the good of all.
Now as I said this is all conjecture for there is no evidence to
sustain this theory but it is one that makes sense to me.
It is this statement that is going to get me many letters from angry
people for the Roman Catholic Church also states that Peter was the First
Bishop of Rome and his bones presently lie in the catacombs of the Vatican as
proof.
How can they say this though? The church in Rome did not come into
being until the reign of the Emperor Constantine, 200 some years after the
death of Peter.
While researching the life and times of Joseph of Arimathea and the
story of the Holy Grail, I became aware of a tragic conspiracy that has endured
the test of time, that the Roman Catholic Church was not the original
center of Christianity and has perpetrated a lie. They have knowingly smothered
the facts and actually re-written history in some places to substantiate
their vision that they are the one and only true Christian religion.
This conspiracy began long ago and it is my estimation that it began
with Constantine the Great, around the year 323 AD. This is the year that
Constantine had a basilica erected on the site of the Circus built by
the Emperor Caligula. The site was chosen, as it was the place that many
early Christians were killed for the pleasure of the Roman people. The
importance of the site grew and eventually more buildings were erected and in 498 Pope Symmachus built the original buildings now known as The Vatican.
The definition of the word Vatican in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge is, applied both to the palaces of the Pope
and to the Papal Administration.
References to 'The Vatican' are seen in many documents, written and
attributed to times before 323. So it is safe to assume that they are
referring to where the Pope lived and not the present buildings. This
is an important piece of information for latter on.
Constantine has been hailed through out history as the savior and
protector of the Christian faith for it was he that forced the Romans and their
neighbors to accept the Christians and to be tolerant of them.
The Catholic Encyclopedia portrays Constantine as a reluctant convert
who had to be won over to the faith. I believe that I can show that this is
not the case.
Constantine was the son of a Roman Officer Constantius Chlorus and his
wife Helena. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that Helena was not the wife but
a concubine and of low birth and stature. This is as far from the truth
as you can get while still keeping to the facts.
Helena was the daughter of a Welsh King making her a Princess and this
can hardly be construed as low birth and stature. As for being married, it
is hard to believe that Helena would agree to live with a Roman Officer
and leave her family if she were not married, especially since she was at
the time a Christian. Being a Christian at a time when religion was very
important, it can be assumed that she married with in her religion (thus
making his father the Roman Officer Constantius Chlorus a Christian as
well)and she would naturally have raised her son Constantine in her beliefs.
So before he ever began his illustrious career as savior of Christianity,
Constantine was a practicing Christian.
Now I know you are saying how can this be? Wales was a backward,
ignorant country of savages. Oh how history has been twisted to match the will
of another.
At the time of Christ Wales was a thriving land with large universities
run by the local Druids, free to all that wished to learn. It had a
well-established mining trade and shipped their product to countries
all over the world. There were large cities like Cardiff and Caerleon that
rivaled anything the Romans had. They had a well-established system of
local kings and princess that can be followed by lineage from then till now.
In his book 'Description of Wales by Geraldus Cambrensis,' states
that 'It is worthy of remark, that the Welsh bards and singers, or
reciters, have the genealogies of the aforesaid princes, written in the Welsh
language, in their ancient and authentic books; Which shows that knowledge of
their record keeping was known of in ancient times, this is contrary to most
modern scholars that state that there are no ancient Welsh records.'
The Llandaff Charters, The Welsh Chronicles, The Triads and numerous
other texts hold the history of the Welsh for those who can read it, for they
are not written in Latin or Greek but the language of the Khumry, the Old
Welsh. It is probably this fact that has eased the hiding of the truth, for
how many people do you know who can read Khumry? Unfortunately it also
hinders the telling of the truth as so few people now read Khumry that the
documents must all be translated into English and this is a daunting task.
This is definitely not information that the Catholic Church wants to be
known for it would certainly hinder their claim of Rome being the seat
of Christianity. How would it look if there was a church in existence
almost 300 hundred years before the one in Rome? It has the potential of
toppling the entire Holy Hierarchy.
If St. Peter, under the leadership of Joseph of Arimathea, established
a church in Wales in 37 AD and he is declared to be the first Pope of the
Catholic Church then this would make Llandaff the first and rightful
Vatican.
This simple fact may be the reason that the church at Llandaff was so
honored in the past. It was the only other church in England with an
Archbishop after Canterbury, and why would that right be bestowed on
such a lowly church as a Welsh church unless there was some real power behind
it. It would also explain why it was a must see for all visiting clergy.
The fact that Wales was Christian is noted by the writer Tertullian in
âAn Answer to the Jews written 193-216 AD. âBritain was already
subjugated to Christ. Therefore establishing beyond any doubt that it was accepted knowledge. This was at a time when they were still slaughtering
Christians in the Circus in Rome.
And again I hear cries of how can this be, Britain was in the hands of
the Romans a
