Following on from my
first two articles (in Issue 1 of The Temple) about the Franks Casket and
Salome; much more new information has come to light, about John the Baptist and
the Holy Grail. However, before I go into discussing these new ideas it is
necessary to talk about the word ‘Grail’, and to establish just what exactly
the ‘Grail’ is, and more importantly for future research, what the
‘Grail’ isn’t.
The two most
common misconceptions about the Grail are a; that it is a cup, and b; that it is
a metaphor for a divine bloodline. I believe that both of these notions are
wrong and pursuing them will only lead future researchers, into a circular path
that goes forever nowhere towards discovering the true grail history.
In the earliest
literature, the Grail is called a ‘Graal’, and it is described as the
‘Holy Vessel’ from the Last Supper.
“Here
ye the history of the most holy vessel that is called Graal.”
(The opening lines of
‘The High History of the Holy Grail’, written in the early 13th century,
and based upon an earlier ‘Latin History’ that was kept at the great Library
of Glastonbury Abbey).
Later medieval Romancers
assumed that the ‘holy vessel’ of the Last Supper was the cup that Jesus
used when he passed around the wine saying, “This is my blood.” But the cup
is not the only ‘holy vessel’ at the Last Supper. Recorded in the Gospels
themselves, there is also present at the table, a ‘Graal’.
What is a ‘Graal’?
‘Graal’ is a French
word, (the language that the early Romances were written in) and a Graal is a
large deep platter; more properly known as a ‘Geraldi’ or a ‘Geraldis’,
in 13th century
France it was known as a ‘Graalz’ or ‘Graal’.
It was a popular type of
communal eating bowl, from which, a small party of people could all eat at the
same time. A large deep dish, into which, would sit a large portion of meat that
would be surrounded by its own juices or gravy. Buffet-like, participating
people could tear off pieces of meat and dip bread into the gravy. This very
type of vessel is described in the Bible, at the Last Supper, and to the 13th century
French it would be recognised as a ‘Graal’.
MATTHEW 26; 23 Jesus
replied, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray
me.”
So, the ' holy vessel'
of the Last Supper, the Graal" was not ever intended to be perceived of as
the cup. That it was, came about because of the rigid fanaticism of Roman
Catholic medieval Europe, and because of the importance to a Catholic world of
the Eucharist at every Catholic Mass, (drinking the blood of Jesus).
Later Romancers then
favoured the cup.
Now, to many minds, the
Grail as a Cup is a worldwide- accepted religious, occult, and spiritual symbol,
and in my opinion this is an error, which has hindered many investigations.
The other popular
misconception is that the Grail, under the name of ‘Sangreal’, should be
interpreted as ‘Sang Real’ (Blood Royal) and that it thus represents the
heritage of a Divine Bloodline.
This idea is promoted by
the secret order of the Prieure de Sion, through the best selling book, ‘The
Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’ by authors, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and
Henry Lincoln.
However, the authors
themselves do not even state that ‘Sangreal’ means ‘Blood Royal’, they
only ponder the question and leave it up to the reader to decide for themselves.
Which is all well and good but ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’ was
written over 20 years ago and since then, ‘Sangreal’ meaning ‘Blood
Royal’ has become accepted ‘Grail’ dogma to many, many people; and yet it
is a complete corruption of the original word. (Bloodlines do have their role to
play in the history of the Grail. Sir Galahad achieves the Grail because he is
the son of Sir Lancelot, and both Knights are descended of the ‘Fisher King’
bloodline of Joseph of Arimathea, and as such, are destined to be guardians of
the grail; but the meaning of the word ‘Graal’ is not ‘Blood Royal’.)
Originally, was the word
‘Graal’, which later became written in changing variations as ‘Grail’,
‘Greel’, and ‘Greal’. Then it became the "Holy Greal", or more
properly, the "Sancta Greal", which then became shortened to "San
Greal" and "Sangreal". The Prieure de Sion then chop it up into
two, to create "Sang Real"; which is quite clearly nonsense and an
entire world away from the original "GRAAL".
The conclusion is this.
The Franks Casket (of the 8th cent)
refers to the Grail tradition and depicts a head and a vessel. The ancient Welsh
romance ‘Peredur’ (thought by Sabine Baring Gould to date from the 8th cent,
but is at least accepted by some scholars to date to the 10th cent)
speaks of a head ‘swimming in blood’; and the ‘High History of the Holy
Grail’ speaks, not of a cup, but of the ‘holy vessel’, the ‘Graal’,
from the Last Supper, and we know specifically that a Graal is a deep platter.
The Grail then, is not and never was Jesus’ cup of blood, but was and is, the
platter that held the Baptists decapitated head.
On the 30th of
November 2002, I attended the first Templar Conference to be hosted by Pharo.com
at Templar Lodge near Edinburgh, Scotland.
For my part, I gave a
short talk about the Franks Casket and Henry de Blois, and also made the most of
the opportunity to promote Issue 1 of The Temple. Also talking at the conference
were the authors of the best selling book, ‘The Templar Revelation’, Lynn
Picknett and Clive Prince.
Over dinner (the evening
before) I was able to have a chat with Lynn Picknett about John the Baptist (a
favourite subject of hers). I talked to Lynn about the original Grail being a
‘Head on a platter’ and not a ‘Cup’ at all, and then I asked her opinion
about a strange idea that I had read about recently in a book called ‘The Head
of God’ by Richard Laidler.
In ‘The Head of
God’, the author makes an interesting biblical observation that I had not
noticed before; that, in the Gospel of Mark, just before the description of how
King Herod comes to give Salome the head of John the Baptist, Herod is also
described as being very upset about the growing popularity of Jesus, and Herod
is wondering whether Jesus is John the Baptist ‘reincarnated’.
(Of course this makes no
sense at all because John baptised Jesus, they were contemporaries who knew each
other, so how could Jesus possibly be John reincarnated? Yet that is what the
Gospel of Mark, 6;16, says!)
In an attempt to explain
the ‘reincarnation’, the author of
‘The Head of God’
concludes that perhaps John had been a long time dead before Salome asked for
his head, and that his head was already a prized relic in Herod’s keeping; but
this makes no sense as it doesn’t explain Jesus and John being contemporaries,
and Jesus being John reincarnated.
Whatever the case may
be, it still does not make any sense.
When I spoke to Lynn
about this ‘reincarnation’ enigma, she suggested that maybe it wasn’t
‘reincarnation’ as we know it, and that maybe ‘reincarnation’ is a
modern mistranslation of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. Maybe, Lynn
suggested, it actually should be read that somehow, Herod feared, that Jesus was
in possession of the Baptist's spirit!
The simplified story in
the Gospel of Mark, should then be, that hearing about the preaching and
miracles performed by
Jesus, Herod believed
that Jesus possessed the spirit of John the Baptist. The Gospel of Mark then
goes on to account how Salome had been given the Baptists head. It is not said
what she did with it, but as a Jesus sympathiser, (his Aunt, she was there at
the Crucifixion, and also to attend his tomb) maybe she gave it to Jesus.
Maybe Herod was worried
that Jesus had been given ‘the head on the platter’. (We have already seen
how there was a ‘sacred vessel’ at the Last Supper, that was later used by
Joseph of Arimathea to collect the blood and sweat of Jesus whilst being watched
by Salome and the Magdalene.)
At the Templar
Conference, Lynn Picknett gave a well-argued and intelligent talk about the
relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus. To some, quite a controversial
theory, that Jesus and John were not friendly towards each other but were
actually very bitter rivals. (A fascinating theory that hopefully Lynn and Clive
will write about in the near future).
But for now, just
suppose that Jesus and John were rival prophets/magicians. It would make a lot
of sense in understanding the accusations thrown at the Knights Templar during
their trials. We know that they held a very high devotion to John the Baptist.
We know that they were accused of spitting on the cross. We know them to be
guardians of the grail; and we know them to have been accused of worshipping a
‘Head’.
The ‘Graal’ is again
mentioned in another Gospel, and if Jesus and his disciples really were enemies
of the Baptist, and that somehow, by possessing Johns head, Jesus is able to
start conjuring miracles (as Herod feared) the account of the Last Supper in the
Gospel of John, is not only awesome, but is also a little bit scary!
JOHN 13; 26 Jesus
answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have
dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas
Iscariot, son of
Simon. As soon as Judas
took the bread, Satan entered into him.
A wild speculation I know but maybe, if, on the behalf of Jesus, Salome had John the Baptist beheaded, then the spirit of John the Baptist achieved his revenge, by possessing Judas Iscariot, at the Last Supper; bringing about the Crucifixion of Jesus.
Yuri Leitch