In Search Of The Holy Grail

[angelicminx]

Okay, I know I'm a little behind (Or a great big ass, depending on who you ask), but I watched this documentary in preparation for finally seeing The DaVinci Code and I'm just a bit confused. (I know, it's not hard to do.)

The documentary referenced 4 known claims of finding "THE" Holy Grail and mentioned different historical points; The Crusades being one point. Now, I don't know my history, I barely passed it in highschool, so I didn't really grasp what they were trying to tell me. Could someone enlighten me on the subject?



It also has me questioning history. Is it historically accurate or was a 'spun-tale' believed and then accepted as a 'true accounting of events'? I'm aware that bards would embellish a story to make it more exciting for the listener. I'm also aware that western outlaw legends were embellished as well. Bearing this in mind, I'm curious as to how we know what is true, what is embellished and what just flat out didn't happen?

 

[neonlyte]

Okay, I know I'm a little behind (Or a great big ass, depending on who you ask), but I watched this documentary in preparation for finally seeing The DaVinci Code and I'm just a bit confused. (I know, it's not hard to do.)

The documentary referenced 4 known claims of finding "THE" Holy Grail and mentioned different historical points; The Crusades being one point. Now, I don't know my history, I barely passed it in highschool, so I didn't really grasp what they were trying to tell me. Could someone enlighten me on the subject?

It also has me questioning history. Is it historically accurate or was a 'spun-tale' believed and then accepted as a 'true accounting of events'? I'm aware that bards would embellish a story to make it more exciting for the listener. I'm also aware that western outlaw legends were embellished as well. Bearing this in mind, I'm curious as to how we know what is true, what is embellished and what just flat out didn't happen?

History is a work of fiction rooted in fact. It is distorted by the writer and since we in the west live in a largely Christian society, the history that influences our culture largely stems from Christian 'writers' between say 300 and 1200 yrs AD since they were pretty much the only ones who could write.

I know as much as you about the Holy Grail, other than it is a legend just as Monastary of St Catherine built on Mount Sinai, on the supposed site of Moses 'burnng bush' is dedicted to a person who never lived, though she did give her name to the Catherine Wheel firework.

You might try 'God's War' - Chris Tyerman, for the history of the Crusades. He doesn't mention the 'Holy Grail' either.

ETA: seeing it posted, I don't think it helps much

 

[tickledkitty]

I would say skip the movie and read the book, keeping in mind that it is a work of fiction. Dan Brown has recieved lots of criticism for tweaking the facts to fit his story. I don't recall seeing any type of response from him on that score, but then, it just sold him more books.

The book was interesting and a fun, easy read, but I'm not sure why it's caused so much controversy. Sure, it challenges christian belief systems and the corporation that is the Catholic church, but, again, it's fiction.

I didn't like the movie much. I think it would have been rather confusing had I not read the book first. However, I'm often disappointed in movies when I've read the book first.

The book probably has the answers you're looking for. I've seen a couple of documentaries, and it seems like they purposely don't really tell you anything. They kind of lead you on for an hour or so and then leave you hanging with no real conclusive evidence.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[snip]...It also has me questioning history. Is it historically accurate or was a 'spun-tale' believed and then accepted as a 'true accounting of events'? I'm aware that bards would embellish a story to make it more exciting for the listener. I'm also aware that western outlaw legends were embellished as well. Bearing this in mind, I'm curious as to how we know what is true, what is embellished and what just flat out didn't happen?

Well, that's what makes History so interesting. It would be nice if we had modern recordings of many 'historical' events, but even those don't define historical 'truth'. Otherwise the Daily Show writers would have a much more difficult job than simply going back and pulling up tape that shows politicians saying exactly the opposite of what they said yesterday.

Instead, history becomes more of an investigation that tries to look for multiple sources and sort out their likely biases. Too often, it's an investigation that sets out to seek confirmation or support for some pretty dubious already-made conclusions.

Too many people think of the subject of History as the memorization of dates and contracts and battles, and so forth. There's that aspect, but if one is willing to put in a bit of time for research and critical thought, History can be so much richer and more meaningful. Yes, there is an element of uncertainty, but dealing with uncertainty is always an education.

 

[angelicminx]

I would say skip the movie and read the book, keeping in mind that it is a work of fiction. Dan Brown has recieved lots of criticism for tweaking the facts to fit his story. I don't recall seeing any type of response from him on that score, but then, it just sold him more books.

The book was interesting and a fun, easy read, but I'm not sure why it's caused so much controversy. Sure, it challenges christian belief systems and the corporation that is the Catholic church, but, again, it's fiction.

I didn't like the movie much. I think it would have been rather confusing had I not read the book first. However, I'm often disappointed in movies when I've read the book first.

The book probably has the answers you're looking for. I've seen a couple of documentaries, and it seems like they purposely don't really tell you anything. They kind of lead you on for an hour or so and then leave you hanging with no real conclusive evidence.

I thought about doing that, but I didn't want to buy the book and it's hard to get at the library. Apparently it's still popular. I've also had the same experience with watching a movie after reading the book (Ex. Harry Potter). I'll end up watching the movie with my husband first, and then I'll read the book.

 

[angelicminx]

Well, that's what makes History so interesting. It would be nice if we had modern recordings of many 'historical' events, but even those don't define historical 'truth'. Otherwise the Daily Show writers would have a much more difficult job than simply going back and pulling up tape that shows politicians saying exactly the opposite of what they said yesterday.

Instead, history becomes more of an investigation that tries to look for multiple sources and sort out their likely biases. Too often, it's an investigation that sets out to seek confirmation or support for some pretty dubious already-made conclusions.

Too many people think of the subject of History as the memorization of dates and contracts and battles, and so forth. There's that aspect, but if one is willing to put in a bit of time for research and critical thought, History can be so much richer and more meaningful. Yes, there is an element of uncertainty, but dealing with uncertainty is always an education.

Memorizing dates and battles... ugh. That's why I hated history. Now that I'm an adult I'm finding an interest.

 

[angelicminx]

History is a work of fiction rooted in fact. It is distorted by the writer and since we in the west live in a largely Christian society, the history that influences our culture largely stems from Christian 'writers' between say 300 and 1200 yrs AD since they were pretty much the only ones who could write.

I know as much as you about the Holy Grail, other than it is a legend just as Monastary of St Catherine built on Mount Sinai, on the supposed site of Moses 'burnng bush' is dedicted to a person who never lived, though she did give her name to the Catherine Wheel firework.

You might try 'God's War' - Chris Tyerman, for the history of the Crusades. He doesn't mention the 'Holy Grail' either.

ETA: seeing it posted, I don't think it helps much

Of course you know it now makes me wonder if my ex wasn't really on to something when he questions the bible's authorship.

 

[tickledkitty]

I had an excellent religious history class in college that explored the question of authorship of the Bible. It really is questionable. People would write things and then sign someone else's name in order to pay homage to that person.

There are cases where a particular person supposedly authored more than one book, but each one has a completely different writing style. Also, there are other gospels that weren't included in the Bible. The Gospel of Mary, for example, which was supposedly written by Mary Magdelene. Who made the decision on what was to be included?

It's nice to suppose that this all came directly from God, but is it realistic to believe that nobody's personal feelings came into it or that politics, culture, society, etc., didn't play a role?

 

[Carnevil9]

Dan Brown's book was a fictionalization of a book based on real archaeological research called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." It should probably be available at your local library.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Blood_and_the_Holy_Grail

Regarding the actual grail, there are many theories. I have seen, with my own eyes, a grail purported to be THE grail at a Cathedral in Valencia, Spain.

http://www.rosslyntemplars.org.uk/holy_grail.htm

I'm no Indiana Jones, but it looked authentic to me!....Carney

 

[slyc_willie]

My favorite Grail Myths

1) During the Fourth Crusade, Jacques De Molay, leader of the Knights Templar, took the Holy Grail from Jerusalem and sent it along with the bulk of the 'Templar Treasure' to a safe location . . . the Americas.

How did he know about the Americas? Well, that part was kind of 'glossed over,' but some believers in this notion point to A Rossicrucian Church in Scotland with bas-reliefs depicting corn (which is only found in the Americas). The Rossicrucians were believed to be heavily connected to both the Knights Templar and the Priory of Scion.

So . . . the Holy Grail in America? Who knows . . .

2) Dan Brown's hypothesis that the Holy Grail was not an object, but rather a person was based upon the ideas and theories outlined in 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail,' by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln.

The essential idea is that Jesus Christ sired a daughter by Mary (perhaps Mary Magdalene), who was named Sarah. As a teenager, Sarah was smuggled across the Mediterranean to the southern shores of France, and married into a Frankish line that became known as the Merovingians.

The term 'Holy Grail' is derived from Sangraal -- Sang Real; True Blood -- and refers to the bloodline of Jesus Christ. Followers of this belief say that the Priory of Scion was formed to protect this bloodline, until such time that Jesus Christ returns.

------

It's all interesting stuff, and whether or not you believe any of it, there are thousands of scholars around the world who spend their lives persuing Grail theories.

In the meantime, it makes for damn popular Hollywood fare

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Memorizing dates and battles... ugh. That's why I hated history. Now that I'm an adult I'm finding an interest.

because now you aren't following someone else's idea of what is important. You are looking strictly what you find important, and are now allowed to sift through the meaningful elements as you see fit, and come to your own conclusions about the material read.

Isn't being a grownup great?

 

[3113]

So . . . the Holy Grail in America? Who knows . . .

Which reminds me, I've got to polish that damn thing. You wouldn't think something Holy would tarnish, but it does

My favorite Holy Grail story:
Holy Grail Trailer

 

[slyc_willie]

Which reminds me, I've got to polish that damn thing. You wouldn't think something Holy would tarnish, but it does

I think it's been tarnishing for a good 2,000 years . . . .

 

[angelicminx]

I had an excellent religious history class in college that explored the question of authorship of the Bible. It really is questionable. People would write things and then sign someone else's name in order to pay homage to that person.

There are cases where a particular person supposedly authored more than one book, but each one has a completely different writing style. Also, there are other gospels that weren't included in the Bible. The Gospel of Mary, for example, which was supposedly written by Mary Magdelene. Who made the decision on what was to be included?

It's nice to suppose that this all came directly from God, but is it realistic to believe that nobody's personal feelings came into it or that politics, culture, society, etc., didn't play a role?

I actually thought it was an excellent question when he first raised it, but Lord do I hate crediting him with any intelligent thought.

 

[neonlyte]

I actually thought it was an excellent question when he first raised it, but Lord do I hate crediting him with any intelligent thought.

Oh come on. he must have had one

 

[angelicminx]

Dan Brown's book was a fictionalization of a book based on real archaeological research called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." It should probably be available at your local library.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Blood_and_the_Holy_Grail

Regarding the actual grail, there are many theories. I have seen, with my own eyes, a grail purported to be THE grail at a Cathedral in Valencia, Spain.

http://www.rosslyntemplars.org.uk/holy_grail.htm

I'm no Indiana Jones, but it looked authentic to me!....Carney

Yeah, that one was shown on the documentary as well. While it's beautiful, I have a hard time believing that a 'peasant' would have had something like that in their possession. It seems more likely to me that the object would be something common, like the one made of wood.

I have very limited knowledge of both history and religion, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've always understood that Jesus lived as the common man lived. Which would mean, to me, that he would not have had something that obviously indicated wealth.

The theories are interesting, as well as diverse. I'd love to see all of the object touted to be "The Holy Grail", just for the sake of seeing them.

Thanks for the information, Carney. I had forgotten about that book. And it's interesting to me to see other people's views.

 

[angelicminx]

Oh come on. he must have had one

Well... He did marry me.

 

[angelicminx]

1) During the Fourth Crusade, Jacques De Molay, leader of the Knights Templar, took the Holy Grail from Jerusalem and sent it along with the bulk of the 'Templar Treasure' to a safe location . . . the Americas.

How did he know about the Americas? Well, that part was kind of 'glossed over,' but some believers in this notion point to A Rossicrucian Church in Scotland with bas-reliefs depicting corn (which is only found in the Americas). The Rossicrucians were believed to be heavily connected to both the Knights Templar and the Priory of Scion.

So . . . the Holy Grail in America? Who knows . . .

2) Dan Brown's hypothesis that the Holy Grail was not an object, but rather a person was based upon the ideas and theories outlined in 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail,' by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln.

The essential idea is that Jesus Christ sired a daughter by Mary (perhaps Mary Magdalene), who was named Sarah. As a teenager, Sarah was smuggled across the Mediterranean to the southern shores of France, and married into a Frankish line that became known as the Merovingians.

The term 'Holy Grail' is derived from Sangraal -- Sang Real; True Blood -- and refers to the bloodline of Jesus Christ. Followers of this belief say that the Priory of Scion was formed to protect this bloodline, until such time that Jesus Christ returns.

------

It's all interesting stuff, and whether or not you believe any of it, there are thousands of scholars around the world who spend their lives persuing Grail theories.

In the meantime, it makes for damn popular Hollywood fare

Hmm... interesting info.

Mary Magdalene... the name is familiar. I thought that was the name of his mother. Thank goodness for google. When I first heard the theory mentioned on the documentary and then read it here my thought was, "Incest? Wow. I wonder why it's considered morally wrong in that case." LOL! And now you know why I don't get into religious debate.

 

[angelicminx]

because now you aren't following someone else's idea of what is important. You are looking strictly what you find important, and are now allowed to sift through the meaningful elements as you see fit, and come to your own conclusions about the material read.

Isn't being a grownup great?

Yep! I've gone back and read some of the novels I was 'supposed' to read in school. Good books.

I've taken in a lot of things as an adult, and learned a lot, but I keep most of that to myself.

 

[raphy]

Dan Brown's book was a fictionalization of a book based on real archaeological research called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." It should probably be available at your local library.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Blood_and_the_Holy_Grail

Regarding the actual grail, there are many theories. I have seen, with my own eyes, a grail purported to be THE grail at a Cathedral in Valencia, Spain.

http://www.rosslyntemplars.org.uk/holy_grail.htm

I'm no Indiana Jones, but it looked authentic to me!....Carney

Didn't you see the 3rd Indy movie?

The cup of Christ is the cup of a carpenter. Simple, humble, unadorned

Indiana Jones said so so it must be true!

 

[cloudy]

Didn't you see the 3rd Indy movie?

The cup of Christ is the cup of a carpenter. Simple, humble, unadorned

Indiana Jones said so so it must be true!

...and Dan Brown is a historian.

Minx: I don't think you need to prepare at all for watching the movie. On the other hand, education is never wasted.

That movie was one of the few that I liked more than the book. The story is very entertaining, but Brown isn't all that great an author. In fact, parts of it were so badly written that I was thrown out of the story at lightspeed.

The thing that cracked me up when the book was released was how many people took it as the gospel truth (pun intended). I don't know how many times I had to say, "um...guys? FICTION."

If you take the story at its face value: a couple of hours worth of entertainment, then it delivers.

I'm slowly working my way through Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and it's interesting, but I should have spent the extra for a hardback edition. The paperback is printed in a font so damn small that it gives me a headache to read for any length of time.

 

[angelicminx]

...and Dan Brown is a historian.

Minx: I don't think you need to prepare at all for watching the movie. On the other hand, education is never wasted.

That movie was one of the few that I liked more than the book. The story is very entertaining, but Brown isn't all that great an author. In fact, parts of it were so badly written that I was thrown out of the story at lightspeed.

The thing that cracked me up when the book was released was how many people took it as the gospel truth (pun intended). I don't know how many times I had to say, "um...guys? FICTION."

If you take the story at its face value: a couple of hours worth of entertainment, then it delivers.

I'm slowly working my way through Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and it's interesting, but I should have spent the extra for a hardback edition. The paperback is printed in a font so damn small that it gives me a headache to read for any length of time.

Oh yeah! Dan's the man.

The preparation was on the basis of "Passion of the Christ". Had I not known the basic story going into that movie, I wouldn't have had a clue what was going on. Glad to know that 'The DaVinci Code' isn't like that. (Loved Passion of the Christ though. I won't let my daughter see it just yet. )

Agree with Brown's abilities. I've read Angels and Demons. Entertaining book, but some of it was... sluggish.

I'm sure I'll get around to that one eventually, and I'll keep 'hardback' in mind. I have enough headaches on my own, I don't need help.

Thanks, Cloudy.

 

[JamesSD]

Didn't you see the 3rd Indy movie?

The cup of Christ is the cup of a carpenter. Simple, humble, unadorned

Indiana Jones said so so it must be true!

Exactly!

Indy was the true finder of the Holy Grail!


As for the Bible's authorship, a lot of good, scholarly work has researched that. As I recall, there's good evidence that the books of the New Testament attributed to Paul were in fact written by a historical person, named Paul. The Gospel of John implies it was written by the disciple of the same name, but based off of when historians believe it actually was written, he would have been too old. The other Gospels are practically anonymous other than having first names attached to them.

As for the Old Testament/Torah, it's a mish-mash. Scholars beleive Genesis had at least four separate authors. Exodus couldn't have actually been written by Moses. Most of those books were written far after the events in them took place.