Please go to the new 2019 updated website of the whole book at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/
The following extract is part of a two volume work called 'The Island of Avalon' by the Reverend Francis Uriah lot.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-Volume-2/dp/132630979X
Abbadare in the Prophecy of Melkin
The ‘Grail’ is in fact
the body of Abbadare and the body of Abbadare formed the image on the Turin
shroud. However, unless we accept Abbadare as the disguised name of Jesus,
we will never arrive at the solution to the Grail legend. It must be understood
that Henry Blois did not understand the full purport of Melkin’s prophecy.
Henry Blois understood that the prophecy of Melkin was genuine as he went in
search of Joseph at Montacute and used his own motive for the search 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 our ‘experts’ inform 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 (especially in the monastic
system). Modern scholars remain bemused by the meaning of Abbadare, but most can deduce the unambiguous meaning that Joseph
of Arimathea is buried on an island along with ‘something else’. Carley’s
speculations are almost as fantastically far removed from intelligent
speculation to comment further.From what we are led to believe, Joseph has two
vessels full of 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 stated otherwise, it would have ensured the prophecy’s destruction in a
monastic system which is based upon belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
However, it 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. 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. There is
certainly no resurrection spoken of in the prophets as the Roman church would
have us believe. There is only a miscomprehension 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 that survives the oyster’s
death and is valued greatly. In other words, its beauty remains long after the
body of the oyster has disintegrated, yet it was fashioned while in the flesh.
Melkin has understood the prophets and 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. It is not as if
it is completely obtuse and open to any interpretation…. as Melkin mentions the
prophet Jesus in the prophecy itself. So, we can conclude Jesus is associated
in some way and we know Joseph was the man who claimed his body. If one was to
take a cross section of two thirds of the population of the globe i.e. leaving
out the Christians and asked them a simple question, I am sure upward of 90%
would answer the question with the same response. 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?
However, the point of
this chapter is to clarify why it is that Joseph has brought the body of Jesus
to Burgh Island. Obviously the accuracy of the data in the prophecy leads to
the island. 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 stored[1]
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.
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
destroyed the entire Knights Templar in a single day. After all, some organisation
has built the alignment of St Michael churches (since Henry Blois era) which
mark out the line from which we bifurcate at 13 degrees.
My main thrust here is
to show that it is not silly to suggest that Joseph of Arimathea brought Jesus
to an island which he knew Jesus had spent time near while growing up. 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 meto proclaim good news to
the poor.He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisonersand 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 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. There are already enough contradictions in the Gospels which
clearly indicate that the writers were trying to square a virgin birth spoken
of by the prophets with a husband called Joseph who disappears for most of the
Gospels and reappears (in name at least) 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.
This
aside…. 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
while Jesus’ mission was already underway and there was jealousy of her
proximity to Jesus by the disciples.[2] 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 Joseph
for a marriage after both Jesus and Mary had grown fond of each other while
Jesus was studying in southern Britain. 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. The
Devon Archealogical Society has dismissed any relevance to what Goldsworthy
posited regarding Arthur as they had already carried out a survey 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 Arthur is on Burgh Island
(how could he be), but Joseph’s remains are 50ft below the surface on Burgh
Island. I have no interest in Iron Age remains or Arthur’s supposed grave on
Burgh Island;[3] just the
fact that the tomb of Joseph is buried deep in the island. 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. But it
is doubtful if the hobbyists that constitute the Devon Archaelogical Society
would even recognise Ictis as Burgh Island since the foremost expert[4]
on the subject does not even mention Burgh Island.
The fact that the Devon
Archaelogical society would not find the tomb first time round is simply
because it is under 50ft of upended slate 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 stretching back at least to the time of Pytheas
c.350-20 BC. This was the community which operated Ictis which was spoken of by
Pytheas. The Island, which Strabo relates that a Phonecian captain ran his ship
on the rocks to protect its 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 Cunliffe has a pet theory and because certain artefacts have been
found on Mount Batten in Plymouth sound he has concluded that this is ‘his’
Ictis. Firstly, it is not an Island and does not have a tidal causeway which
Diodorus describes. It is excruciating that in an entire book on Pytheas and
Ictis he 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. 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 Ictis does not comment on the
coincidence of Diodorus’ extract and how it fits Burgh Island: 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 with the topography of Burgh
Island close to where the ingots were discovered and with an account in history
by Strabo which explains how the tin Ingots were found inshore of the rock on
which the Phoenician scuttled his vessel. Such is the state of modern
scholarship that Cunliffe will not pin the tail on the donkey for the Devon
Archeological Society to get their spades out. If the reader really wants to
understand the stupidity of some commentators we should recall Ashdown’s drivel
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….
[1] We 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.
[2] In 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.’
[3] Goldsworthy’s
assertion that 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 Avalon 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 Arthur is reckoned to be on Avalon; not understanding that Avalon
was the fictitious name for Ineswitrin…. the island which is the basisof
the Melkin prophecy originally.
[4] The ignorance
of Barry Cunliffe is breath-taking. After discussing the Erm ingots he does not
mention an island a few miles from where the cache of ingots was found and
which fits Diodorus Siculus’ description (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.
