My initial aim, as stated in the preface, was to bring to the attention of archaelogists and scholars that bones of Joseph of Arimathea were on Burgh Island. Others have come to the same conclusion before me but this is so unthinkable for mainstream academia to comprehend.  The relics have not been unearthed simply because our scholars have advised the owner of Burgh Island that the prophecy of Melkin is a fake and the geometry displayed therein has no substance. My annoyance is at their incompetence. It is a question of competency versus credentials. One does not have to be an authority to realise that all the geometry in Melkin’s prophecy is exact and this could not happen by chance. The reason no scholar has counteracted what Yale and Goldsworthy have pointed out is simply because there is no way to counteract the truth without seeming in denial, especially in Carley and Crick’s case.

There are also glaring questions to which we may never find an answer and these are mainly to do with the alignments of the Michael line deriving from the Beltane line or English Meridian as Melkin calls it. We can understand it is perfectly possible for Melkin to measure the 104 nautical mile line, but how is it that that line passes through Montacute and terminates on Burgh Island? It is these types of questions which have made the decryption of Melkin’s prophecy seem to be highly incredible. All the icons mentioned in the Melkin prophecy are relevant to its solution; thus, the thirteen degrees are relevant to the sphaerula at Avebury at the bifurcation of the line conveyed by the prophecy of Melkin; but maybe it is the simple geometric solution that evade’s scholars intellect.

So, let us recap on how we got here and how the scholastic community missed what common sense (for the most part) lights upon. If we start with the prophecies of Merlin and conclude Henry Blois has written them, which I feel I have exposed in this exposé…. we know Henry Blois must have written HRB…. because it is painfully obvious the author of the prophecies is the author of the HRB and VM and the JC version.

Once we understand that it is Henry Blois, we can then conclude that an array of misinformation has been proffered regarding Geoffrey of Monmouth. We can now also clearly understand the circumstances and stages under which HRB was composed and that the misinformation regarding the person of ‘Geoffrey’ was meant to mislead, to mask Henry’s authorship. We then should ask, what other manuscript material has been tampered with? Now, someone who links themselves so closely with Cicero and who accounts authorship greater than any worth is hardly not going to write anything in his lifetime. So, scholars even if they do stick their head above the parapet will dismiss my findings on the basis that I have cited too many works composed by Henry Blois. Consider Cicero’s output!!!

We find that after Henry’s initial authorial foray with the psuedo history and Primary historia, it is his next endeavour which sets him on a course; Caradoc’s life of Gildas puts a chivalric Arthur at Glastonbury.

Because it is stated that on account of his wife Gwenhwyfar, (in life of Gildas) that Arthur is brought into association with Glastonbury, we can deduce Henry Blois is the instigator because Guinevere is Henry’s invention in HRB. So then, we understand how the Modena archivolt has an engraving of an episode from the book connecting Arthur to Glastonbury and we know Henry Blois must have passed by Modena on several occasions. We can conclude therefore, that the trips over the snowy mountains, the Alps, and Aravian range (mentioned in the prophecies) are all constructs of a person having made the trip to Rome. We can also understand that Wace’s allusion to the ‘Bernard’ pass is from the same mind along with other specific expansions in Roman de Brut which parallel the author’s thinking in HRB which indicate both are one and the same author. We also can see plainly the author of HRB has placed his falsely historical fight against the Romans in Burgundy where he knows the lay of the land unlike a Welsh ‘Geoffrey’

So, if we follow the Glastonbury connection, because Henry was Abbot there…. we find Malmesbury’s book (DA) convinces us that Avalon is Glastonbury. The book was not only dedicated to Henry Blois, but the name Avalon was indeed invented by Henry Blois…. the author of HRB. Then, we must understand that the Melkin prophecy, which we know is accurate to within yards, has the name Avalon on it and yet we now know Henry has transposed that name from a Burgundian town and implanted it in HRB and replaced the name of Ineswitrin on the Melkin Prophecy.

Therefore, if the prophecy’s directions are accurate and the name of the island which it locates is deemed invented, we should ask: which island name did the prophecy originally have on it? Then we find that an Island mentioned by William of Malmesbury is donated to Glastonbury in 601 AD and one can assume that Island is located in Devon as it was donated by its King.

Logically, if the data which constructs the line (when decoded from the prophecy), locates an island in Devon called Burgh Island, we can assume that the chances are that it could be Ineswitrin. When we then look at the etymology of Ineswitrin, we find that it means possibly ‘white tin Island’. We should also ask, (if we understand that Ineswitrin is in Devon)….who might it be, and in what tract, are we misdirected to believe that Ineswitrin is synonymous with Glastonbury?

We find it is in Caradoc’s life of Gildas and the book of DA which was dedicated to Henry Blois. We also find out that Caradoc died c.1130 so the author of HRB’s famous colophon is misdirecting us.  We find also that an episode from Caradoc’s book is found on the Modena archivolt before 1140; just a year after the discovery of Primary Historia at Bec. So, if we look to the author of HRB and life of Gildas we find he is a bishop making regular trips passing Modena with ample wherewithal and enough clout to have commissioned the engraving which relates to the kidnap episode at Glastonbury in his concocted life of Gildas.

Joining the dots out of pure common sense, we find that Diodorus describes an Island which traded in tin on the south west peninsula of Britain and his description of an Island matches Burgh Island. We have confirmation that Burgh Island is the Island of Ictis to which Pytheas referred, because tin Ingots of the same date are found two miles away with an account from Strabo which explains how the tin ingots came to be found at the head of the Erm estuary.

The confirmation that Burgh Island is Ictis is deduced simply because a Phoenician ship wrecked itself in order to preserve the ‘secrecy of Ictis’; and this island which sold tin to the ancient world had the biggest deposit of tin just 12 miles away and ample rivers behind the island for tin streaming and mining. Once the island of Ictis is established as a tin trading Island in Devon, we remember that Joseph of Arimathea by Dumnonian/Cornish tradition was a tin merchant.

Once we establish that Burgh Island (Ictis) and Joseph have a connection through the tin trade, we also remember that Melkin’s prophecy directs us to the same Island purporting to contain Joseph of Arimathea’s sepulchre…. with an amazing display of geometric precision. We can then establish why this Island has a connection to Joseph through two different sources i.e. tin trade and Melkin Prophecy; we find that the only two places to which Joseph is assigned a burial place in literature i.e. Montacute and Ineswitrin….. are these two places existing on ‘a line’ that Melkin, through an encrypted document, has asked us to construct such ‘a line’, providing angle, length, and both start and termination points…..which terminates on an Island in Devon called Ineswitrin. This line, 104 miles long as melkin states, bifurcates at 13 degrees as stated by Melkin the geometer in his cryptic geometric message.

We then ask how is it that Avalon and Joseph are linked, and we find that the author of the book HRB who first mentions Avalon is the abbot of Glastonbury, the same place where a prophecy is found which links Avalon to Joseph. Glastonbury is also linked to Joseph very early on by Perlesvaus and Robert de Boron’s allusion to Vaus d’ Avaron. If we follow this trail, we can see there is no natural connection between King Arthur and Joseph (except they are both linked to Glastonbury and Avalon) and we should then ask; in what material do we find this connection to them both?

We see it in DA as both King Arthur and Joseph are connected to Glastonbury. We can also grasp that the Grail literature which anachronistically joins Arthur to Joseph emanates from the Blois region and its provenance can be connected to close family relations of the Abbot of Glastonbury in Champagne, who are known as the patrons of Chrétien and Walter Map.

This literature speaks of the Grail which is a vessel which contains the Lord’s blood and it is connected to Joseph and Arthur in continental literature (supplied by the like of Bihos-Bleheris); but also, in a tract called the Perlesvaus. The Perlesvaus tract relates to the Old church at Glastonbury and its ‘lead roof’. It mentions in the colophon to Perlesvaus that Guinevere and Arthur are buried at Glastonbury…. but more importantly, it speaks of the vessel which is also related to the mysterious ‘duo fassula’ in the prophecy of Melkin at Glastonbury.

We then find that features of the Melkin prophecy relate to the composition of the HRB in that the Island of Avalon which has been substituted by name in the only extant example of the Prophecy of Melkin is named as the mysterious island where Arthur is last seen. This island, as we all know, turns out to be Glastonbury, established for the naïve by the existence of a bogus ‘leaden cross’. The cross reiterates spuriously (redundantly naming) where it is, obviating where it is found is in Avalon; not forgetting, Avalon is Henry’s own invention in HRB from a town in his family’s region.

Not only does the Melkin prophecy portend the finding of Joseph’s relics in Avalon, but we are led to believe (by it being named as the last place Arthur is seen), that King Arthur (if we are naïve) was also buried and found in Avalon. We see that the Grail object is modelled on the duo fassula (if we have our eyes open).

Also, the search for the relics of Joseph, (the whole point of the prophecy of Melkin) suggests that the prophecy is encoded and involves the locating of an island; followed by a search for the tomb itself. We find that two pieces of evidence i.e. the purchase of Looe island and the search at Montacute indicate Henry Blois is looking for Ineswitrin.  Both the enigmatic duo fassula is mirrored in Grail literature and the search for the same object in la quête du Graal or Chrétien de Troyes Perceval or le Conte du Graal. Here it is presented as a quest for the same enigmatic object i.e. the Grail, that is said by the  Melkin prophecy to be in the tomb along with Joseph’s relics.

Because Henry Blois is employing the prophecy as an inspirational template, he too invents a totally fatuous semblance of a hidden meaning (mirroring the decryption of the prophecy) in which gullible scholars search for meaning in the Grail procession.⁸⁶⁷ This vast array of linked material, which, by association is known as the Matter of Britain (as we have covered by repetition and I hope not tedium), and looking from every perspective throughout these pages…. has two factors which are inextricably linked: Glastonbury and Henry Blois.

The one extraordinary piece of this entire puzzle is wrapped up in the book of DA which coalesces what would seemingly be disparate associations and we know this book was dedicated to and interpolated by Henry Blois.  We know it could only be him who transformed his own invented name of Avalon to be commensurate with the physical Glastonbury because Gerald says the location of Arthur’s body was previously known and was written in Glastonbury annals.

If we ignore the ignorant decrees of the experts…. it could only be Henry Blois (who has the copy of DA) who lets everyone know the location, because whoever planted the body knew where he had located it between the pyramids. It is for this reason Arthur and Guinevere are said to be buried in Avalon, in Perlesvaus (a tract written before the disinterment of Arthur). It could only have been Henry Blois who knew that Avalon was situated at Glastonbury in the interim years (where it becomes widely accepted) between his death and Arthur’s disinterment. It could only be Henry Blois for he is the first to imply Insula pomorum is at Glastonbury c.1155. 

Therefore, it has to be Henry Blois who had the leaden cross constructed (which ludicrously states in which location it is, when it is discovered) and who pointed out where to find the grave.

It does not take a huge amount of imagination to understand that his inspiration for manufacturing Arthur’s grave, ‘to be found in the future’, is based on the prospect of finding Joseph in the future; overtly spelled out in the Melkin Prophecy. It was originally this prophecy which spoke of an Island named ‘White tin Island’ (which we know exists in Devon because of the 601 charter)…. that Joseph’s relics are said to exist there (and the reason for them being there is because Joseph was a tin merchant). Therefore, to those who use common sense, the prophecy of Melkin is not a fake, but was extant in the era of Henry Blois. Quod erat demonstrandum; unless of course, you have the credentials and profess to understand more than mere mortals but have been blinded by the very fact you account yourself an expert.

What has prevented these events coming to light is simply the arrogance of the scholars. They have made some money on the gravy train regurgitating the same drivel from generation to generation postulating untenable positions employing a method peculiar to the modern medievalist scholars much like a pick and mix. Some scholars have positively made a cottage industry of inviting all and sundry to contribute papers which they compile into books which agree with their views. So practised is this methodology, that one references the utterances of others in reverence of their learning and thereby has an inverted pyramid been built over the last two hundred years; unfortunately, the cap stone is the last thing to be added which those builders had denied and the whole edifice comes crashing down.

I do not pretend accuracy in every statement, far from it; but I have put forward an explanation because I have understood that no scholar wants the gravy train to stop. Joining the dots goes against the very nature of Medieval scholarship; focus on one area of expertise has its just rewards. Without an overall explanation provided to the scholars, common sense cannot prevail; hence, the trail of flawed and unfounded theories concerning our three genres of study. Scholars will continue to hide behind an impenetrable wall of learning, which, up until now, has had to be accepted because they are supposedly the experts.

There are three critical premises upon which modern scholarship’s erroneous edifice is built and when these a prioris are not accepted (founded upon an unclear chronology of events), a clearer picture emerges.

But before anything can begin to unfold, comprehending the Matter of Britain begins with the acceptance that Henry Blois is ‘Geoffrey’. The only way to that conclusion initially is through the prophecies of Merlin and then through the text of HRB where Henry Blois has left his affilliations.

Firstly, if one does not insist that any mention of Arthur buried in Avalon could only transpire by interpolation after the exhumation of Arthur’s supposed bones; the answer to several questions become more discernible, because several solutions become tenable…. which, by spurious chronology had been previously unacceptable as a red line dreamed up by modern scholar’s deductions. To go beyond a red line would then invalidate another false assumption and heaven forbid we might contradict the hallowed utterance of a previous member of the cabal; until we see a teetering edifice is exposed built upon a faulty foundation.

Avalon had existed at Glastonbury since Henry’s death and the place of Arthur’s burial was pointed out in DA.

  We do not have to ask why Gerald is saying there is previous knowledge of the location; why dig in that spot etc. The only previous solution before was to ignore his testimony!!! Who cares when the dig happened; it is how and why it happened.

If we accept the location between the pyramids was presented in DA which indicated where Arthur and his wife were buried before the dig transpired; we have to accept it was Henry Blois all the evidence considered.  There is no rational reason why the interpolation in DA mentioning the location of Arthur’s grave could not have been in DA before Arthur’s disinterment. The reason we should allow this possibility is there is no other information surrounding the dig given in DA. Someone had to have set up the gravesite. If the mention of Arthur’s gravesite had been a later interpolation, after the disinterment; some circumstances about the dig would have been related in DA and certainly the cross would have been mentioned. Especially, if the whole idea was to make capital and Henry de Sully was responsible.

Henry Blois provided the only information he could before the event while remaining incognito. The entire account of Arthur’s disinterment would not have been left in the hands of Gerald to relate If Henry de Sully was the culprit for the fraud.  Once this position is understood….it opens a multitude of positions concerning not only chronology of the events but also who did what and who wrote what when.

If there is no intransigence and insistence that Avalon was not previously known as Glastonbury before the ‘leaden cross’ was discovered, this then allows that in the interim between Henry Blois death and the disinterment…. an understanding of Avalon as Glastonbury at least was known at the abbey because it was written in DA. It then becomes possible to explain how it is that the forerunner of Perlesvaus, said to be in Latin and written at Avalon, which tells of Arthur and Guinevere’s burial at Glastonbury, could have existed prior to the disinterment.

Therefore, it enables us also to implicate Henry Blois as the original inventor of Grail material which ties the Grail, Avalon, Arthur and Joseph all to Glastonbury. But, more importantly to Master Blehis…. said by Gerald to have lived ‘shortly before our time’.⁸⁶⁸ He has now become a chronological possibility as a promulgator of early Grail material as the similarity of his name is found always connected as the originator of Grail literature. Just as Henry Blois had deposited the original HRB edition at the abbey of Bec to be discovered, in the Queste it is even spelled out that  “the adventures of the Holy Grail as he had seen them were put in writing and kept in the book depository of Salisbury,(the Cathedral Library) from where Master Walter Map drew them in order to make his book of the Holy Grail for the love of King Henry, his Lord”. Walter Map is hardly the originator at the court of Champagne as many scholars has suggested.

But this position confutes entirely Logario’s synopsis of events and allows that Joseph in Perlesvaus could pre-exist Arthur’s exhumation; and of course, mention of him to be present in chapters one and two of DA in 1171 at Henry Blois’s death.

Lastly, the most despicable act of negligence and intransigence by modern scholarship is the insistence that Melkin’s prophecy is a fake. On this subject in particular there are only misleading haughty pronouncements of hot air. The denial of the geometry found in the prophecy of Melkin could only be maintained by professor Carley with a good reason to reject it; and it is not the geometry which lacks veracity.  It is his ludicrous yet bizzare notion that Melkin’s Abbadare is to be identified with Baybars (in Arabic al-Malik al-Zahir Rukn al-Din Baybars al-Bunduqdari), Sultan of Egypt and Syria, who had captured the fortress of Safed, Melkin’s ‘Saphat,’. No No No. Melkin was not talking about a fortress of Safed, he was trying to show us on which Island Joseph of Arimathea was buried.

It is simply not possible to possess so many distinctions after one’s name, and not understand that the geometry locates Burgh Island; and also to be cognisant of the fact that an island in Devon was donated to Glastonbury. The real crux to finding the solution to the Matter of Britain is that any investigator has to realise that there has been single-minded fraud at Glastonbury and this same mind has proliferated Grail lore and Arthuriana to the continent.

The general consensus of scholarship which promotes a view that many different monks over time each added his own interpolation into DA; and then miraculously Joseph lore at Glastonbury just evolved by a fortuitous convergence of factors is shown to be incorrect and fatuous; especially in terms of storyline where much of this consolidated convergence is supposedly carried out by Robert de Boron on behalf of ‘Geoffrey’, William of Malmesbury, and Master Blehis.  Well done Robert!!!!

If we don’t recognise Henry Blois as supplier of all material to Robert, then Robert is a very clever chap since he never was in possession of the prophecy of Melkin to associate the Grail with Joseph. Nor would he take it upon himself to tie together Merlin from the Vita Merlini with Ambrosius Merlin from HRB; wrapping up so many inconsistencies to make a consolidated Merlin. So, to think that Robert’s/Henry/s story of Percival is not heard at the Court of Champagne while Henry is alive is untenable as an opinion or theory. Henry Blois’ invention is the start of the edifice of the Grail that all continuators including Chrétien get their inspiration from. It is the architect who managed affairs at Glastonbury who ties Joseph and the Grail to Glastonbury, but it is Henry’s ‘Percival’ not Robert’s that gives the Grail its mystical origins in the trappings of a tale.

This exposé may have seemed like a rant against scholarship and expertise and it is plain to see I excel in neither in my turgid and wearisome report. My attribute is that I am not a scholar and as I said at the beginning of this exposé …. what I have said is verifiable.

Now, the reader may enquire how it is that I know Joseph’s relics exist on Burgh Island. There are two ways of answering this and only one would you find credible and that is the explanation found in these pages. My credibility lies in the fact that hopefully the reader has been able to follow my erratic (and apparently mad) explanation of how the Matter of Britain transpired. The proof is in the pie. But unless one presents the facts so that scholars can understand it; ‘Geoffrey’ will continue to be real to them and Joseph and Jesus’ relics will never see the light of day; but most importantly of all to the modern world; the Roman religion will continue to perpetuate the lie.

F. U. Lot. 

We have seen in our investigation, the persistent rumours of Joseph of Arimathea in Britain and how it is that we have been misdirected as to his burial place by the propaganda put out by Henry Blois. When we start to search into how it is that the Britons have a tradition of St. Paul coming to Britain and whether this is true, it seems any early apostolic tradition has been expunged just as the tradition of Joseph of Arimathea visiting Britain. These traditions as Augustine found in Britain were very much alive when he arrived: “who preferred their own traditions before all the churches in the world”.

From a very early period there could only be one culprit; the very empire which morphed into the self-professed inheritor of Christ…. the corrupt Vatican empire.  The Roman church to maintain their monopoly has been behind editing the sequence of events that transpired directly after the crucifixion. Both Joseph of Arimathea and St. Paul came to Britain, but since the very beginning of the Roman Church’s claim to primacy… wherever possible, any evidence of these visits has been purposefully obscured.

One can understand how the tradition of Joseph fell silent as the very core of the Christian religion was kept a secret by the Dumnonians, the inheritors of a portion of the Jews who reached Britain after the Diaspora. The fact that the body of Christ lay on Burgh Island was probably only known by Royalty, until the King, under pressure from the Saxons, bequeathed the Island to Glastonbury. If Melkin was the King whose name is illegible on the 601 charter, it would certainly explain how it is that he is cognizant of where Joseph’s body is.

So, why did St. Paul so wish to visit Spain and the British Isles? We should look at a little known and often dismissed document that has much in common with our investigation. The document is now understood to be chapter 29 of the original Acts of the Apostles and was translated by C. S. Sonnini from an original Greek manuscript found in the Archives at Constantinople and presented to him by the Sultan Abdoul Achmet while visiting Constantinople.

It gives an account of trips undertaken by St Paul after his two years enforced residence in Rome in his own hired house. This lost Chapter 29 of the Acts of the Apostles was found interleaved in a copy of the French naturalist Sonnini de Manoncourt ‘Voyage en Grèce et en Turquie’. It was purchased at the sale of the library and effects of the late Right Hon. Sir John Newport, Bart, MP (1756–1843) in Ireland, whose family arms were engraved on the cover of the book. It had been in their possession for more than thirty years, with a copy of the royal decree (firman) of the Sultan of Turkey, granting to C. S. Sonnini, permission to travel in all parts of the Ottoman dominions.

No trace of the original Greek manuscript has been found to date and for this reason the document is considered a fake. Also, the document appeared at a time when supposedly a ‘new theory’ was in vogue that the Britons were part of the lost tribes of Israel. Few have considered that if a Frenchman had been handed the original, he would most certainly have handed it to a Catholic authority for verification. The original would never be heard of again if it glorified holy links to Britain. The title page of Sonnini’s work, in which the English translation of the document was found has this written upon it:

“Travels in Turkey and Greece undertaken by order of Louis XVI, and with the authority of the Ottoman Court by C. S. Sonnini, member of several scientific or literary societies of the Society of Agriculture of Paris, and of the Observers of Men.’Mores multorum videt et ubes.’ — HOR., London; Printed for T. N. Longman and O. Rees, Paternoster Row, 1801.”

The text first came to light in London in 1871 when it was printed as a six page pamphlet by Geo. J. Stevenson entitled: The long lost chapter of the Acts of the Apostles: containing an account of the Apostle Paul’s journey into Spain and Britain, and other interesting events.

Should we look upon this Chapter 29 document as being eradicated from all extant copies of the Acts of the Apostles by the Roman religion at a very early date, specifically to nullify any notion the British might have of testing primacy over Rome? The manuscripts from the Western text-type (as represented by the Codex Bezae) and the Alexandrian text-type (as represented by the Codex Sinaiticus) are the earliest surviving texts of Acts. The version of Acts preserved in the Western manuscripts contains about 10% more content than the Alexandrian version of Acts. Why should some unadulterated version not exist in Constantinople, far from the desire of those ready to re-write history and who were bent on establishing their own monopoly by extension of the Roman Empire.

It also may have been the long hand of Rome trying to eradicate Father Good’s testimony concerning Montacute as we discussed earlier. The finding of Joseph of Arimathea would confirm the primacy of the British church. Even though Father Good had initially deposited his information in the English College in Rome, had it not been for the existence of Maihew’s Trophea remaining unadulterated in Stillingfleet’s private collection…… perhaps knowledge of Melkin’s marker point on the 104 mile line would have been lost.

Certainly, without this reference point (on a line) there would be less chance of verifying one has found the true location of Ineswitrin.  Perhaps, by chance, this extant copy of Chapter 29 has survived; preserved far away from the hands of Rome. The Papacy has perverted the truth about events after the crucifixion and eradicated evidence of St. Paul’s visit to Britain. An argument put forward for Paul’s visit to Britain can be found in a book first published in 1861 subtitled ‘The origin of British as opposed to Papal Christianity’ by the Rev R.W. Morgan better known as ‘St Paul in Britain’.

However, as to the genuineness of Sonnini’s work and the fact that he did witness chapter 29 in Turkey, seems beyond doubt when one considers he was travelling during the reign of Louis XVI, who reigned from 1774 to 1793 and would have published during this period or soon thereafter. Why, one must ask, would a Frenchman fabricate or bear witness to a manuscript which confers on Britain a visit of Saint Paul? This could have been understandable as a work of polemic written by the British, but a work possibly faked by a Frenchman tends to confirm its validity.

In the second letter of St. Paul to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:21), St. Paul sends to Timothy the greetings of “Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brethren”. Claudia, the only woman to be mentioned is said by tradition to be the wife of Pudens and that she was the mother or sister of Linus, who was the second Bishop of Rome and St. Peter’s successor after his death. Some have assumed that Claudia Rufina is the same Claudia being greeted and who was married to Aulus Pudens a senator and friend of Martial, the poet.

She was definitely British and described by Martial as `sprung from the woad-stained Britons’. It is not sure if she was the daughter of an exiled British King, living in Rome, Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus, who ruled as a Roman client in the late 1st century or the daughter of the British resistance leader Caratacus who gave the famous speech in the Senate. If this is the same Claudia as the friend of St. Paul, Claudia and Pudens were also the hosts of St. Peter and their house (which became the church of St. Pudentiana in Rome) was the place where St. Peter celebrated mass i.e. the First Church in Rome was in fact established by Britons.

The Roman Church founded on St. Peter had been entertained by offspring from a Royal King that had already accepted the truth of Jesus as the Messiah. Such readiness to receive the truth could have been established by the presence of Joseph of Arimathea in Britain straight after the crucifixion. It is this presence of Britons in Rome and persistent rumours of the Holy Family settling in Britain, which at a later time has caused the Roman Church to assert its primacy. Especially, when these pretentions became a point of contention between Bishops partly later, due to a struggle to establish creeds and dogma and also due to the contention of events provided by British sources as to what transpired after the crucifixion. Three hundred years after these contentions, St John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) writes in his ‘Contra Judacos’: “Even the British Isles have felt the power of the Word, for there too churches and altars have been erected: there too, as in the extreme East, or in the South, men may be heard discussing points of Scripture, with different voices, but not with different belief.”

The end result of these events as we can see today is that the Roman Church has nullified into fable or myth any account of Joseph’s arrival. Cornish tradition still survived about Joseph’s contact with the south west.  For the Roman Church to sanitize any mention of St. Paul’s visit to England makes one conclude there were early contentions as the Roman Church tried to bring the British traditions into submission which as we have seen is corroborated later on by St. Augustine.

Chapter 29 is written in the style of the Acts and reads like a continuation of it. The places named are the Roman appellations and the peoples named are also likewise in their ancient forms such as Helvetia and Belgae and Lud. The original text would have been written in Greek and in the same style and tone as the Acts of the Apostles. It would seem that a feasible answer as to how it has survived is that it was preserved in the Archives of Constantinople, far from the meddlers of history in Rome. None can say emphatically who the Acts of the Apostles was written by, but it would appear to be Luke ‘the companion of Paul’ (named in Colossians 4:14)…. for reasons that both prefaces are addressed to Theophilus.  In the preface of the Acts it explicitly references “my former book”. Acts may well have been a joint venture with anecdotal evidences added by Paul himself or a travelling companion. However, there is no Amen at the end of Chapter 28 and in every book written by Paul it concludes with the word “Amen” just as it does here in Acts 29:26.

Whether St Paul went on to Spain at this occasion as he had planned in Romans 15:24, I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while, or again in Romans 15:28, So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this fruit, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way… or was prevented until later, is not evident. He does however state that his visit was only for a short period and can be seen as heading back in the direction of Rome.

Chapter 29 has barely been dealt with by Papal theologians since its discovery as it has largely been ignored. This is probably because it tells of St Paul going to Spain, and then on to the British Isles and this raises too many inconsistencies in the now standardized Roman version of events. The implications of this visit by St. Paul also add credence to the rumours of the Holy Family’s voyage that it has taken the Roman Church millennia to stamp out. The Vatican had managed to reduce the story of Joseph’s voyage to Britain to the rank of rumour, romance or legend, (until Henry Blois finds Melkin’s prophecy), but St. Paul’s visit to Britain would add credibility to the Britons professing primacy in the establishment of the first Church.

Theodoretus, in his commentary on 2 Timothy 4:6 wrote, ‘When Paul was sent by Festus on his appeal to Rome, he travelled, after being acquitted into Spain, and thence extended his travels into other countries and to the islands surrounded by the sea’. This (given that we have a St Paul’s cathedral), surely was the British Isles.  Paul’s travels might have occurred after his aquittal. Theodoretus was the Bishop of Cyropolis and he attended the General Council at Ephesus in A.D. 431 and at Chalcedon in A.D. 451 consisting of 600 Bishops…… so his witness should be taken seriously…. since it also concurs with this account given in the chapter 29 version of events. In A.D. 435 Theodoretus wrote, “Paul, liberated from his first captivity at Rome, preached the Gospel to Britons and others in the West. Our fishermen and publicans (the Disciples) not only persuaded the Romans and their tributaries to acknowledge the Crucified and His laws, but the Britons also and the Cimbri (Cymry).” Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, wrote in A.D. 320, “The Apostles passed beyond the ocean to the isles called the Britannic Isles.” In A.D. 600, Venantius Fortunatus wrote of Britain as having been “evangelized” by St. Paul.

The Sonnini Manuscript is almost certainly the concluding portion of the “Acts of the Apostles” and gives an account of Paul’s journeys after his two years enforced residence in Rome. The following is the English translation of the Sonnini Manuscript, which was originally written in Greek.

Acts 29:1 “And Paul, full of the blessings of Christ, and abounding in the spirit, departed out of Rome, determining to go into Spain, for he had a long time purposed to journey thitherward, and was minded also to go from thence into Britain.”

Acts 29:2 “For he had heard in Phoenicia that certain of the children of Israel, about the time of the Assyrian captivity, had escaped by sea to the isles afar off,” as spoken by the prophet, and called by the Roman’s Britain.”

Acts 29:3 “And the Lord commanded the gospel to be preached far hence to the Gentiles, and to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Acts 29:4 “And no man hindered Paul; for he testified boldly of Jesus before the tribunes and among the people and he took with him certain of the brethren which abode with him at Rome, and they took shipping at Ostium, and having the winds fair, were brought safely into an haven of Spain.

Acts 29:5 “And much people were gathered together from the towns and villages, and the hill country; for they had heard of the conversion of the apostle, and the many miracles which he had wrought.”

Acts 29:6 “And Paul preached mightily in Spain, and great multitudes believed and were converted, for they perceived he was an apostle sent from God.”

Acts 29:7 “And they departed out of Spain, and Paul and his company finding a ship in Armorica sailed unto Britain, they went therein, and passing along the South coast they reached a port called Raphinus.”

Acts 29:8 “Now when it was noised abroad that the apostle had landed on their coast, great multitudes of the inhabitants met him, and they treated Paul courteously, and he entered in at the east gate of their city, and lodged in the house of an Hebrew and one of his own nation.”

Where exactly the port of Raphinus was is not clear, but if this whole chapter was an invention why not use a more plausible port and not one that is unheard of.

Acts 29:9 “And on the morrow he came and stood upon Mount Lud; and the people thronged at the gate and assembled in the broadway. He preached Christ unto them, and many believed the word and the testimony of Jesus”.

St Paul’s Cathedral stands today at Ludgate hill in London.

Acts 29:10 “And at even the Holy Ghost fell upon Paul, and he prophesied, saying, behold in the last days the God of Peace shall dwell in the cities, and the inhabitants thereof shall be numbered; and in the seventh numbering of the people, their eyes shall be opened, and the glory of their inheritance shine forth before them. And nations shall come up to worship on the Mount that testifies to the patience and long suffering of a servant of the Lord.”

Acts 29:11 “And in the latter days, new tidings of the Gospel shall issue forth out of Jerusalem. And the hearts of the people shall rejoice, and behold, fountains shall be opened and there shall be no more plague.”

Acts 29:12 “In those days there shall be wars and rumours of wars; and a King shall rise up, and his sword shall be for the healing of the nations, and his peace making shall abide, and the glory of his Kingdom a wonder among princes.”

Acts 29:13 “And it came to pass that certain of the Druids came unto Paul privately, and showed by their rites and ceremonies they were descended from the Jews which escaped from bondage in the land of Egypt, and the apostle believed these things, and he gave them the kiss of peace.”

Acts 29:14 “Paul stayed and lived there for three months. He was confirmed in the faith; and preached Christ continually.”

Acts 29:15 “And after these things, Paul and his brethren departed from Raphinus; and sailed unto Atium in Gaul.

Acts 29:16 “And Paul preached in the Roman garrisons and among the people, exhorting all men to repent and confess their sins.”

Acts 29:17 “And there came to him certain of the Belgae to enquire of him of the new doctrine, and of the man Jesus; and Paul opened his heart unto them, and told them all things that had befallen him, how be it that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; and they departed, pondering among themselves upon the things which they had heard.”

Acts 29:18 “And after much preaching and toil Paul and his fellow labourers passed into Helvetia, and came unto Mount Pontius Pilate, where he who condemned the Lord Jesus dashed himself down headlong, and so miserably perished.”

After arriving in northern France and travelling through Belgium and Helvetia; the writer seems to think he arrives at the place that Pontius Pilate found death in Switzerland. Eusebius, in his Historia Ecclesiae ii: 7 quotes some early apocryphal accounts (for which he gives no source) which relate that Pilate met with misfortune in Caligula’s reign 37–41 and was exiled to Gaul and eventually committed suicide there in Vienne where a monument called Pilate’s tomb can still be seen.

Acts 29:19 “And immediately a torrent gushed out of the mountain and washed his body, broken in pieces into a lake.”

Acts 29:20 “And Paul stretched forth his hands upon the water, and prayed unto the Lord, saying, O Lord God give a sign unto all nations that here Pontius Pilate, which condemned thine only begotten Son, plunged headlong into the pit.”

Acts 29:21 “And while Paul was yet speaking, behold there came a great earthquake, and the face of the waters was changed, and the form of the lake like unto the Son of Man hanging in the agony upon the cross.”

Acts 29:22 “And a voice came out of heaven saying, Even Pilate hath escaped the wrath to come, for he washed his hands before the multitude at the blood-shedding of the Lord Jesus.”

Acts 29:23 “When therefore, Paul and those that were with him saw the earthquake, and heard the voice of the angel, they glorified God, and were mightily strengthened in spirit.”

Acts 29:24 “And they journeyed and came to Mount Julius, where stood two pillars, one on the right hand and one on the left hand, erected by Caesar Augustus.”

Paul then travels to “Mount Julius” (the Julian Alps between Italy and Austria) then onto Illyricum, on his way to Macedonia and Asia, from where he wrote the Pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus.

Acts 29:25 “And Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, stood up between the two pillars, saying ‘Men and brethren, these stones which ye see this day shall testify of my journey hence; and verily I say, they shall remain until the out pouring of the spirit upon all nations, neither shall the way be hindered throughout all generation’.”

Acts 29:26 “And they went forth and came unto Illyricum; intending to go by Macedonia into Asia, and grace was found in all the churches; and they prospered and had peace. Amen.”

There seems little point to such an invention. One can barely see any advantage even if the chapter were composed by someone British and designed to prove that the British were one of the lost tribes as Pliny already has said that there were Jews in Britain.