The ‘Grail’ is in fact the body of Abbadare, also a coded reference to the Duo Fassula in the prophecy of Melkin, from which the Holy blood gets its name as the San Greal as I have covered in the section on the Grail legends. The body of Abbadare was said to be on Ineswitrin by Melkin. Of course, if you are a stubborn scholar you will not follow the proofs that I have put forward up to now in this research. However, for those of us with common sense, unless we accept Abbadare as the disguised name of Jesus in the prophecy of Melkin, we will never arrive at the solution to the Grail legend. Henry Blois did not understand the full purport of Melkin’s prophecy. Henry Blois partially understood the prophecy of Melkin. He must have believed it was genuine because it is evident he went in search of Joseph’s tomb at Montacute (as I showed in the section on Montacute) and procured Looe Island, because on the surface this is what the Melkin prophecy seems to be about. Henry Blois turned his own experience, having gone in search for the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, as the metaphor for the ‘quest’ of the elusive Grail.
Abbadare is the word used by Melkin himself to describe Jesus. It is plain lunacy to suggest he is to be identified with Baybars (in Arabic al-Malik al-Zahir Rukn al-Din Baybars al-Bunduqdari), Sultan of Egypt and Syria, as professor Carley informs us. It is fair to say that if Melkin had laid out a puzzle whereby the body of Jesus were the object of a search, the prophecy would never have survived until this era (especially in the monastic system).
Modern scholars remain bemused by the meaning of Abbadare, but most can deduce the unambiguous meaning openly evident in the Melkin prophecy that Joseph of Arimathea is buried on an island along with ‘something else’. From what we are led to believe in the text of the Melkin prophecy, Joseph has two vessels filled with the blood and sweat of Jesus. This is simply a clever obfuscation. Abbadare is Melkin’s way of referring to Jesus without stating what is blasphemous.
In the Gospel resurrection there is no body. This is the foundation of the Roman religion and Pauline eschatology. If Melkin had openly stated that Jesus was in a tomb, it would have ensured the prophecy of Melkin’s destruction in a monastic system which is based upon belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. However, knowledge of Jesus’ tomb was never part of the foundation of the church in ancient Briton. How could it be, if, as Augustine found on his arrival, that the Britons had a different belief and preferred their own traditions before all the churches in the world. Now, this enlightened sentiment did not occur on its own, but is a reflection of the complaint of the Briton’s to Rome’s self professed monopoly. Of course, the Briton’s had the same book put out by Rome because Rome invaded Britain.
As we have covered, Kim Yale’s deduction of the ‘Father’s pearl’ or the ‘Pearl of the Father’ is what Melkin is conveying by the word Abbadare in cryptic form.
I am not starting on a theological debate, but there is much understanding in this one-word Abbadare which is based in the understanding of the prophets of Israel and Jesus’ understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven being likened to the pearl of great price. There is certainly no resurrection spoken of in the prophets as the Roman church would have us believe. There is only a mis-comprehension of a few pertinent sentences.
The metaphor of the ‘pearl of the Father’ or Abbadare is derived from the understanding of a concept….that an ‘oyster’ while in the flesh makes a beautiful object i.e. a pearl, which long outlasts the oyster’s death and is valued greatly. In other words, a pearl’s beauty remains long after the body of the oyster has disintegrated, yet it was fashioned while in the flesh.(again, Jesus’ reference to the Kingdom of Heaven).
Melkin has understood the prophets of Israel i.e Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel etc. and Melkin has used this metaphor in conjunction with Jesus’s allusion to the ‘pearl of great price’ and has presented us with the name of Abbadare in his cryptogram which is designed to lead us to Joseph of Arimathea’s grave. It is not as if the prophecy, its directional data or what objects it refers to, is completely obtuse and open to any interpretation…. as Melkin mentions the prophet openly in the prophecy itself.
So, we can conclude Jesus is associated in some way to the meaning of the Melkin prophecy and we know Joseph was the man who claimed Jesus’ body after the crucifixion as only the Father could do. The crowds knew that Jesus was Joseph’s son. It is just the Gospel writer’s misinterpretation of Joseph’s profession as a metal trader which has been interpreted as a Carpenter to square the conundrum that If Jesus was the Messiah, How could he be the Son of a Virgin if Joseph was his father. They knew Joseph was his father: “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers
James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Mathew 13:55.
So, the question is: ‘if Joseph of Arimathea took down Jesus’ body from the cross and Joseph and the body of Jesus are never heard about or seen again until there was a rumour that Joseph is buried in Britain ‘with something mysterious’…… what do you think the mysterious object is? Well, if you are a scholar, one would automatically dismiss the idea that the prophecy might involve an island in Britain. Far to obvious!
A modern scholar would automatically, with the names of Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus openly displayed in the Melkin text, start thinking of Muslim Baybars. Then, having read the Melkin prophecy, one would think since the prophecy appeared at Glastonbury, it must refer to Syria. Furthermore, because of ‘no understanding’ and having no comprehension about how Glastonbury lore might have developed; a scholar would utter dark proclamations about the Melkin prophecy until other scholars, like headless chickens running around confused by their own baffling utterances; all concur with one voice saying Fake, the Prophecy of Melkin is a Fake!
The only thing Fake is the bunch of self promoting scholars that peddle their concocted theories and bestow honours on each other from generation to generation; no student challenging a mentor once the honour of a PhD is bestowed. The very system we have devised to increase learning, actually through ignorance, leads us further from the truths that those ‘Profs’ profess to expound upon.
However, the point of this chapter is to clarify why it is that Joseph of Arimathea has brought the body of Jesus to Burgh Island. Obviously, the accuracy of the data in the prophecy leads to Burgh island in Devon for those able to follow simple geometric instructions. The fact that Joseph was a tin merchant and we have identified the island as Ictis where tin was stored and from which Astragali were ‘provended’…. should be enough to convince the most sceptical reader. If we can accept the place where the ingots were stored791 has been converted to a tomb and the knowledge of this pre-made ‘crater’ (cratibus praeparatis) was from Joseph’s association with trading tin with the Dumnonian’s; it is not too silly to assert that Joseph brought his relation (read son) to be buried far from the unjust events which had transpired in Jerusalem.
791We know by Diodorus’ description that large quantities of Ingots were transferred to the Island and therefore must have been stored until such time as a Phoenician ship arrived. We Know also that Burgh Island was Ictis because Strabo gives the exact account of how the archaeological evidence exists in the Erm estuary.
However, many have debated where Jesus spent his time in the so called ‘lost years’ and it is, I believe, important to establish that Jesus spent most of his time elsewhere before returning to Jerusalem to meet his fate. The Roman church has eradicated any trace of the sanctity of British heritage by usurping a position of power and pre-eminence which does not rightfully belong to it…. but rather to the Island of Britain.
As Yale and Goldsworthy proclaim, it was the Templars who had solved Melkin’s prophecy and had found the tomb of Joseph and Jesus and removed the ‘doubled fasciola’ that is currently called the shroud of Turin. This is, in effect, why the church murdered the entire Knights Templar in a single day. After all, in plain logic, some organisation must have built the alignment of St Michael churches (since Henry Blois’ era) which today marks out the line on the British landscape from which we bifurcate at 13 degrees i.e. the old ‘Beltane line’ now referred to as the St. Michael line.
My main thrust in this section is to show that Joseph of Arimathea brought Jesus to an island in Britain which Joseph had known previously because of his dealings with the Island of Ictis as a tin trader. Maybe as other commentators have posited in the past, Jesus had spent time in a Jewish community in Britain for a period in his youth while accompanying his father/uncle. That Jesus spent time away from his family and then returned is understood by the famous passage in Luke chapter 4:18
He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked.
It is plain to see that Jesus is conscious of the fact that he was the Messiah and substantiates his mission and message by quoting Isaiah. The point is that the locals are trying to verify that it is Joseph’s son. I am not going to get into a theological debate over the differentiation of Joseph of Arimathea and Joseph the carpenter.792 There are already enough contradictions in the Gospels which clearly indicate that the Gospel writers (the author of Q initially) were trying to square a ‘virgin birth’ spoken of by the prophets with a mundane husband called Joseph who disappears for most of the Gospel’s narrative and reappears (in name at least, Q having created the duality of Carpenter Joseph and Joseph of Aimathea the rich merchant)) as the man who takes Jesus’ body from the cross. Suffice it to say that the two Joseph’s are one and the same and Joseph of Arimathea is Jesus’s earthly father. Mathew even traces the genealogy from Abraham ending with: Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
Whether Joseph is Father or Uncle, or two different people is of no consequence. Again, in Mathew, it seems evident that Jesus has been to a foreign land and learnt things that the locals are trying to square with what is known of his mundane provenance:
When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honour except in his own town and in his own home.”
One should inquire how it is that his own Cousin John the Baptist is at odds with recognising him:
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me. ’I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.” Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”
It is pure speculation, but I believe the marriage at Cana was Jesus’ own wedding and Mary Magdalene was his bride. In the Apocrypha a case could be made by certain evidences that Mary turned up in Jerusalem while Jesus’ mission was already underway and there was jealousy of her proximity to Jesus by the disciples.793 I would speculate (given that Magdala was never a location) that the eponym is connected to Magi or King and that Mary could have been a King’s daughter brought to Jerusalem by tin trading Joseph, from Britain, for a marriage after both Jesus and Mary had met each other while Jesus was in his earlier days soujourning in southern Britain.
792Origen denies Jesus was a carpenter. Clearly Origen understood that “tekton” was not a specific reference to carpentry but meant ‘artisan’ or ‘craftsman’.
793In the Gospel of Philip there are holes which have obliterated the text but enough remains to fill the gaps: ‘And the companion of the (lord was) Mary Magdalene. (And he loved) her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her (lips). The rest of the disciples (were jealous) They said to him “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The Savior answered and said to them, “Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.’
Again, this is sheer speculation and until the tomb on Burgh Island is opened up and genetic forensic tests are carried out on the three occupants, it is impossible to go any further. However, since we know from Rabanus Maurus 776 – 856AD the archbishop of Mainz (and the French tradition) that Mary Magdalene accompanied Joseph of Arimathea, we might conclude that Burgh Island would probably be the destination, him being a tin trader.
The Devon Archealogical Society has dismissed any relevance to what Goldsworthy posited regarding King Arthur, as they had already carried out a survey on Burgh Island previously and found no evidence of his grave there or of Iron Age habitation on Burgh Island. In fact the owner of Burgh Island had related that someone had already searched for Arthur’s tomb on the Island. I am not advocating that King Arthur is buried on Burgh Island. How could he be; The Chivalric King Arthur is a product of Henry Blois’ imagination; but Joseph’s remains are 50ft below the surface under the Burgh Island hotel, built upon the same foundations of the old monastery that Camden says still stood in his era before the dissolution of the monasteries. I have no interest in Iron Age remains or Arthur’s supposed grave on Burgh Island;794 just the fact that the tomb of Joseph is buried deep in the island in a cave which was once hewn out for the storage of Tin ingots when Burgh Island was the Island of Ictis which traded Tin to the ancient world.
If the iron age community on Folly Hill just above Burgh Island, purposefully did not inhabit the island, so as not to draw attention to the tin repository in both Pytheas’ era and the Roman era, it might explain the lack of previous habitation detectable by archeologists. But it is doubtful, the hobbyists that constitute the Devon Archaelogical Society would even recognise Ictis as Burgh Island since the foremost expert795 on that particular subject does not even mention Burgh Island.
794Goldsworthy’s assertion that King Arthur is buried on Burgh Island is unfounded. The connection of a fictitious Arthur and Burgh Island is strictly through Joseph’s remains being buried there and Henry Blois’ involvement in changing the name of Ineswitrin for Insula Avallonis on the prophecy of Melkin and leaving this altered edition of the prophecy of Melkin to posterity. It is therefore, Goldsworthy’s specious position that King Arthur is reckoned to be on Avalon; not understanding that Avalon was the fictitious name for Ineswitrin…. the island which is the basis of the Melkin prophecy originally.
795The ignorance of Barry Cunliffe is breath-taking. After discussing the Erm ingots he does not mention an island just two miles from where the cache of ingots was found and which fits Diodorus Siculus’ description of Ictis (allowing for some distortion to Pytheas’ original account). He, like many before him, cannot see how the trading island of Ictis was well placed centrally to all the tin producing rivers of Dartmoor to become the tin mart of the ancient world.
The fact that the Devon Archaeological society would not find the tomb first time round is simply because it is under 50ft of upended slate under the modern hotel with a tunnel leading to it. The amateur archaeologist who once made a futile search for Arthur’s grave on Burgh Island some years ago had no chance of finding an entirely fictional character and would be looking for a tomb at the normal depth.
The hillside above the island and above Bigbury-on-sea is currently being excavated archaeologically and there is evidence of a large community having inhabited the spot overlooking Burgh Island with artefacts detected which date back at least to the time of Pytheas c.350-20 BC. This was the community which operated the Tin island of Ictis which was spoken of by Pytheas. The Island of Ictis, which Strabo796 relates that a Phonetician captain ran his ship on the rocks to protect the island’s secrecy i.e. Ictis, is a couple of miles from the mouth of the river Erm. Here, the very rock described in Strabo’s account exists and the cache of ingots lie in shore of the rock where the Phoenician scuttled his vessel. The remaining evidence concurs with Strabo’s account.
Prof. Barry Cunliffe797 has a ‘pet’ but erroneous theory and because certain artefacts have been found on Mount Batten in ‘Plymouth Sound’ he has concluded that he has identified the Island of Ictis. Firstly, it is not an Island and it never was and does not have a tidal causeway which Diodorus describes. Secondly, it is less in line with any previous description of the island by Greek or Latin chroniclers; it is simply not an island!!!
Sir Barry has found an ancient trading port in an obvious place but no matter how this is construed in Barry’s mind, it is not an island connected to the mainland by a ‘spit’ which is covered at high tide, as described by Diodorus. Furthermore, no matter how hard one tried, one could never keep ‘The Island’ a ‘secret’ as every vessel going in and out of the harbour passes the headland. So, again, Strabo’s account is ignored and so are the Erm Ingots and their proximity to the real Island of Ictis. In typical scholarly fashion and following the long-standing tradition of Medievalist scholars trying to find a niche for their expertise to flourish; we are sent in the wrong direction, further obfuscating the truth rather than elucidating it.
796Strabo, born 64 BC in Amaseia Pontus and died after 21 AD; geographer and historian whose Geographica is the only extant work covering a whole range of peoples and countries known to both Greeks and Romans during the reign of Augustus 27 BC–14 AD. Strabo had read earlier historians accounts who had commented on pytheas’ account of the island of Ictis such as Polybius and Posiedonius
797Barry Cunliffe. The extraordinary voyage of Pytheas the Greek.
In fact, it is excruciating, that in an entire book on Pytheas’ voyage and about the island of Ictis, Barry does not mention Burgh Island. Cunliffe ignores Burgh Island when the recent find of tin ingots at the mouth of the River Erm is 2.5 miles distant. These tin ingots known as astragli, specifically made that shape by old tin miners on the sides of rivers through firing the ‘cassiterite’ in the whirl pools beside the river, are from that date of the incident described by Strabo.
Instead Cunliffe states: The river Erm is one of the five main rivers that flow south from the granite massif of Dartmoor to the channel, and Bigbury Bay is barely 25 km (c.16 nautical miles) from the Iron age port of Mount Batten in Plymouth. It is quite possible that the Erm wreck was a vessel that was about to transport tin, from the Dartmoor fringe, on the short haul to Mount Batten where traders from Armorica might be expected to barter for it.
Cunliffe, writing a book about Pytheas and the island of Ictis does not comment on the coincidence of Diodorus’ extract and how Diodorus’ description fits Burgh Island and could not in anyway apply to Mount Batten: …..and convey it to an Island which lies off Britain called Ictis; for at the ebb tide the space between this island and the mainland becomes dry and they take the tin in large quantities over to the island on their wagons.
This description does not fit Mount Batten. Especially, in consideration of the topography of Burgh Island close to where the ingots were discovered and its access and centrality to the tin deposits of central Dartmoor. There is an account in the history by Strabo which explains how the tin Ingots at the head of the erm estuary were found inshore of the rock on which the Phoenician captain of a tin trading ship scuttled his vessel, which we covered earlier on the section on Ictis. Cunliffe, like madievalist scholars regarding Geoffrey of Monmouth, Glastonbury lore, Gerald’s witness and Grail literature; choose to ignore what is blatantly obvious to a sentient mind.
If the reader really wants to understand the stupidity of some commentators, we should recall Ashdown’s drivel following Carley’s silly and meaningless dark utterances and see clearly why Avalon has remained an enigma: I have argued elsewhere that Melkin’s reference originated in some satirical lay which had consigned the deceased Baybars and his paladins to one of the alternative Mediterranean, Oriental or Antipodean locations of an Avalon….