Thoughts on the Holy Grail

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
41

The Cathari were the Albigensians. The Albigensians were an expression of Bogomilism (probably). At heart, they were yet another Christian gnostic sect. The basic premises that they (and most other Christian gnostics) followed were something like this:

Material reality is inherently evil.

The god who created material reality is either an inferior being (demiurge) or Satan, not actually God. The Albigensians believed that the OT God was Satan.

Since the Hebrews explicitly worshipped the creator being, Judaism is inherently evil.

Most human beings are, at best, mere animals. Soulless bodies.

Souls come from outside the universe and were lured and trapped here either by the creator being (if creator=Satan) or by another evil being (if creator=demiurge). These souls were trapped in the misery and ignorance of flesh.

Christ was sent by the true God to give Knowledge (Gnosis) of the real situation of the universe. He taught this secretly to only a chosen few who were then to seek out the true humans–the ones with souls, and help them free themselves.

Since fleshliness is ultimately inferior, or possibly downright evil, sexual reproduction is at the very least frowned upon–it only creates more prisons.

Albigensians had a “softcore” approach. Ordinary believers could live a less stringent life than utter perfection (only demanded of their leaders). When they died, they could expect reincarnation as humans if they were virtuous or as animals if they were not. The Perfecti (their leaders) were believed to become Christs.

More detail can be found in The Other God: Dualist Religions from Antiquity to the Cathar Heresy. Unfortunately, all the online information sites I’ve found have been extremely propagandistic, either for or against, and should not be trusted. This particular book tends to avoid that.

As you can see, since the Albigensians completely reject physicality, the idea of a “Holy Bloodline” that was sexually transmitted would have been positively blasphemous to them. Thus, claims of a “Sang Real” among the Albigensians rely upon a credulous audience ignorant of Albigensian doctrine.

42

John W. Kennedy wrote:

I think what we have here are a whole lot of people who are only interested one side of the story. After all, what is the definition of a “nutcase book” other than “one which is not taught in graduate school”?

It is obvious, JWK, that the issue has not been settled. The apparent popular attractiveness of the mystical theory shows that the Grail story as it stands is full of holes. Or maybe it’s the Templar story that’s full of holes. In any case, so-called real historians–such as yourself, perhaps–might do well to find an explanation that everyone can live with. That’s what Hancock and Baigent, Lincoln, and Leigh are trying to do (I’m not so sure about von Daniken). They certainly don’t have the whole story themselves, but neither do you, JWK. I am thrilled at your claim to have put the word out.

Anyway, since I would like to actually add to the discussion, here is a list–from some conspiracy-theorist-style Grail folks–of decendents The Bloodline. However, elsewhere on their site they claim that “Through incestuous intermarriage, most of the royal families of Europe can claim descent from them. And from these royal families, have come all 44 of the United States Presidents.”

43

How about “a book containing untestable hypotheses, claims unsupported by extant documentary evidence, results of irreproducible experiments, and/or outright fabrications”?

44

Jesus wept.

45

Thank you, Dogface. I’ve heard quite a bit about the Albigensians, but never as “Cathars”.

46

Why must historians find an explanation that nutbags can live with?

It’s like the moon landings were a hoax crowd. NO explanation will satisfy them, especially the truth. Just like any conspiracy theory group, they cling to their own interpretations and explanations in the face of daunting evidence to the contrary and even refutations of their claims of impossibilities by experiments that grade school kids can perform in their backyard or garage. And yet these folk claim to be professionals in fields like photography and film-making.

47

The best, most complete study of the Holy Grail in the context of the King Arthur legends is the late Norma Lorre Goodrich’s final book, The Holy Grail, published in 1992. But even Prof. Goodrich doesn’t answer the really important question: If the Holy Grail was the chalice that Jesus used at the Last Supper, what was it made of and what did it look like? The supper is a Passover seder held in the holiest Jewish city in the world, attended by a group of 13 men, away from their families and using a borrowed room. Given the accounts of this supper in the Bible, Jesus presided over the meal and wine and bread were served. This leaves a bunch of questions to answer. Would Jewish tradition in the 30’s AD require a special type of cup for the seder, made of a particular material in a certain size with a particular motif? If it was a special cup would Jesus have brought it with him to Jerusalem or would he be provided one by the man whose house they borrowed? Steven Spielberg’s concept of the cup as a plain clay one is consistent, but was it historically accurate? Would the wine cup used for the holiest seder of the year be just your plain jane, everyday cup?
If I wanted to make a replica of the Holy Grail, what would I have to do?

48

Goodrich, I’m afraid, is another writer who cannot be trusted. Merely to read one of her prefaces is enough: “Nobody understands but me. I know all the secrets. Everyone before me was stupid. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me.”

There’s a reason that the Arthurian Encyclopedia doesn’t even mention her.

For the rest, Jesus is early enough that no clear tradition that way is recorded. The Pharisees were only just then beginning to create the Talmudic future of Judaism.

49

I can’t believe I didn’t notice this before…

Of course! It’s all so obvious now! It wasn’t an affair with Mary Magdalene that led to Jesus’ bloodline on Earth, it was an affair with Lilith!
JWK, I apologize in adavance for whatever crackpot nutcase is going to pick that up and run with it, creating more nuissance for historians, but I just couldn’t pass it up.

50

John - Stick to the point. Clay or gold? Silver? Wood? Grape vines and bunches of grapes? Star of David? Bees and beehive? Engraved saying in Hebrew from the Pentateuch, possibly Exodus, around the base or along the top? What do the archeologists say? Any midden inventories from around that time and from or close to the region? Any digs in the Galilee area or Caeserea or Ashkelon that have turned up broken clay cup shards, frescoes with dining scenes, or mosiacs with food items in them? On Goodrich: I like her work. She looked at the details and at the Big Picture. She was interesting enough that I went out and picked up copies of the various epics that she cites. Her reasoning makes sense, whereas with Hancock and the others you’re required to suspend belief to a ridiculous degree or shoehorn the facts. Given the very few manuscripts that have survived the Dark and Middle Ages, I think she did the best with what was available. Her placement of the characters of the Arthurian legends in Scotland and the Isle of Man is eminently more sensible than anything else I’ve read, but I think even she realized that unless some million-to-one shot archaeological find is made, that we’ll never know
the exact answer to any of the big questions about the Grail or Camelot or King Arthur. But I like the way she speculated. - Max

51

Et ille respondens ait: tu dicis.

52

Pardon me for interrupting, and this is probably off-topic… I have heard of the PotEoZ (there’s a Cecil column on it in the archives), but what is anti-Stratfordianism, and why would scholars try to refute it?

53

It’s the notion that practically anybody in the Universe other than Shakespeare must have been the real author of Shakespeare’s plays. Scholars refute it because it’s pretty stupid.

54

Just to second JWK, I’ve read HBHG, and the author’s willingness to leap to conclusions based on assumptions lacking facts pretty much revolted the scientific side of my personalities. But it made for an interesting yarn, with as much facts as the Brothers Grimm.

55

But most don’t even bother, because it’s reallystupid.

Anti-Strat: Shakespeare must have been a nobleman, because all the noblemen in the plays are so realistic.

Scholar: How do you know they’re realistic? How do you know what Elizabethan noblemen were like?

Anti-Strat: By Shakespeare’s plays, which are very realistic.

Scholar: Never mind.

56

In the context of the Holy Grail, you have the Celtic cauldron side and the Last Supper chalice side. You have folks who believe that the Grail was originally a myth of an ever-full source of food and drink, a magical cauldron or serving tray or tankard, etc., and that Christians highjacked this myth by overlaying the legend of the Jesus’ chalice from the Last Supper and occasionally the platter that John the Baptist’s severed head was placed on to present to Herod, both what you would consider relics of the highest order. The substitution is similar to how Samhain became All Saints Day, Saturnalia became Christmas, and Lupercalia became St. Valentines’ Day, all ancient pagan festivals now replaced by Christian holidays. As I dimly remember, even John the Baptist’s severed but preserved head has a Celtic equivalent which was still alive and dispensed oracular advice (even though it was still severed). Whether the Chalice myth developed out of the Cauldron myths doesn’t signify to me. The symbolism of the Last Supper chalice on its own seems to demand a legend or two. Other items associated with the Crucifixion such as the cross itself, the centurion’s spear used to pierce Jesus’ side now known as the Spear of Destiny, and his burial shroud. Other legends, like the Wandering Jew, a man who struck Jesus on the Via Dolorosa, and Veronica, who captures Jesus image on a cloth when she wipes his face after he stumbles and falls. I’m sure that somewhere out there are legends about the knuckle bone dice that were used to divide Jesus’ robe. I’ve often wondered whether there are any legends about the Crucifixion that revolve around the gold, frankincense, and myrrh that the Three Wise Men brought to Jesus after his birth that tie in with his death. If they used the myrrh to prepare his body, what did they do with the gold and frankincense? I’m still asking myself the same questions: What would observant 33 AD Jews from Galilee do with any of these items? Clay or Gold?
PS. To My Fellow Pro-Stratfordians- BBC Shakespeare on DVD at
documentary-video.com (inexpensive).

57

In fairness, JWK, while the Sang Real idea might be as nutty as anti-Stratfordianism, it’s not as obviously nutty. A layman not educated in the matter could easily think that that “san greal = sang real” makes sense. I would recommend that when you encounter this belief, you just respond with one or two of the simpler pieces of evidence (such as the Grail not being referred to as “holy” in Chretien’s work). That’ll be enough to turn the sensible laymen around, but if a person still insists they know the One Single Truth, then you know not to bother any further.

58

Unfortunately, it’s becoming more dangerous, having spread out some of its pseudopods into neo-Naziism. It’s funny; sooner or later, all cults seem to end up there, somehow. Even some of the anti-Stratfordians…

59

The fact is, Triolamj, so far as we are aware, it could have been made of anything. Clay, metal, or wood were probably the most common, and there were a variety of metals that could have been used.

For Judaism of the last few centuries, families who can afford it tend to have silver cups for special ceremonies, but there’s certainly no such requirement. I’ve been at seders at college where we used paper cups. And my daughter decorated a plastic cup when she was pre-kindergarden, and we still use it for the cup of honor at the seder (the cup for Elijah.)

In the period of Jesus, the kind of cup would depend on the social status of the family providing it, far more than anything else.

So, your specific question doesn’t have an answer. Spielberg’s clever conceit is probably as accurate as any – if we’re talking a simple peasant’s cup, we’re probably talking clay or some cheap metal like bronze. But there’s no way of knowing.

Heck, we’re not even sure that the Last Supper was a seder (although we’re reasonably certain it was a Passover meal.)

60

Sorry to take us back a few months but I just picked up the thread.

I don’t have Graham Hancock’s book, but it would make more sense if it were dedicated to Prince Michael of Albany, who claims to be the descendant of Charles Edward Stuart and thereby the Jacobite heir, rather than anyone from Albania.