The Gospel Witness of Christ's Birth and Resurrection

[_honorentheos]

This subject came up in another thread where I mentioned issues with the New Testament narratives to mentalgymnast. I'm quoting my own summary of the issue from an older discussion here with minor modifications to make the thread read consistently.

The question raised at that time was how trustworthy were the gospels of the New Testament in declaring the core message of Christianity. That being, Jesus of Nazareth as redeemer and savior of the world. To address the question, I suggested looking to the birth and resurrection narratives in the Gospels and what that tells us regarding their reliability.

Many modern scholars agree those who built a church up around Jesus after his death believed he was the Jewish Messiah. This would mean they believed Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah which were popular in Roman Palestine at the time. Examples included being a descendant of King David, being born in Bethlehem, and that he would come to the people riding a donkey or ass. And, he'll be raised from the dead.

To make a case for why the New Testament is a poor witness for Jesus' resurrection, let's first look at how the New Testament describes another event in Jesus' life that would require fulfilling Messianic prophecy - his birth.

Mark, the earliest and probably closest Gospel is silent. Why? We don't know. Some scholars have suggested that Mark does not describe a Jesus who sees himself as the Messiah, but rather one who is declaring the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel who would bring a literal Kingdom of God to the earth. Maybe that's true, maybe not. Either way, Mark does not try to show us parallels between Messianic prophecy and the life of Jesus.

John, the last of the gospels to be composed, is also silent on the physical birth of Jesus. Instead, we are given the poetic description of the Logos. I think it's likely that the author of John was not concerned with proving Jesus was the Jewish messiah (as the Gospel of John is also anti-Semitic in general), but instead focuses on showing the reader that Jesus is much more than that - Jesus is the Word of God and with God from the beginning. The John birth narrative isn't missing, in my opinion as is often stated. Instead, it tells the reader the question of what happened at Jesus' birth is the wrong question.

We are left with the two other synoptic gospels to find out about the birth story of Jesus. And they don't match up on almost every point. Why is that? Since they both used Mark and at least one other common source, this also suggests the earliest sources about Christ's life in circulation did not include a birth narrative. The scholarly suggestion is that there wasn't a codified version of the Nativity at the time of their writing. But the Messiah has to fulfill certain prophecies at his birth. What to do? Most likely, both authors took from legends being shared and fit them together as best they could. They may also have invented pieces of the story from whole cloth.

In Matthew, we see constant reference to prophecy being fulfilled. Jesus is born in Bethlehem. Matthew or his sources (from now on I'll just reference Matthew and Luke as short hand for the potential other source) tell a story about Herod killing all of the male children in Bethlehem age 2 or younger, has wise men from the east visit the infant, sends Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod's men, and of course tells us Mary was a virgin. And there is the genealogy that shows Jesus was a descendant of King David. All of the above are specifically included because there is a scripture somewhere that needed to be addressed associated with beliefs about the Messiah.

Yet none of this matches Luke’s telling other than the general idea that Mary was a virgin.

Luke invents the story of a census to get Jesus to Bethlehem, has shepherds visit Jesus, and tells us Jesus and John the Baptist are related. And there is a virgin birth narrative and a genealogy.

The core stories don't match where there is no original source material to provide background consistency.

The parsimonious answer for why, rather than the apologetic one, is simply that the authors invented a backstory for Jesus that met the requirements that showed Jesus was the Messiah. Because they did not/could not collaborate and there wasn't a common source available at the time, the stories differ.

This gives us a couple of general rules of thumb when examining the gospel authors and the Resurrection account.

First, it gives us a hint that if there is a commonly understood event in Jesus’ life and it has been recorded in one of the source gospels, it is likely to show up as common to Matthew and Luke. But absent such an account, they will fill in the gaps with an eye to ensuring the narrative fulfills Messianic prophecy.

Since the Messiah has to be raised from the dead, and Jesus was the Messiah, it is only natural that both accounts tell us this is so. Both Matthew and Luke had Mark as a source, so we should expect to see Mark’s narrative in the account of the passion leading to the resurrection.

We have Mark’s account in chapters 14-16. They tell us that the priests schemed to have Jesus arrested in Jerusalem but feared a riot by the people, there was a last supper of sorts, Jesus took his disciples and prayed before being betrayed by Judas, that before the Priests they ultimately convict him based on His claiming to be the Messiah, take him to Pilate and claim he called himself the King of the Jews which he does not deny. Pilate releases Barnabas when the Jews cry for Jesus to be crucified, and he is handed over to the Roman soldiers for execution. He is mocked as a would-be king, beaten, crucified, and dies at noon on the day before the Sabbath. His body is given to Joseph of Arimathia who places him in his tomb and has a stone rolled in front of it. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph see where he is buried. They wait until after the Sabbath (a night, a day, and a night) and go that next morning described as the first day of the week to wash the body. They wonder who will roll the stone away but find it is already moved. Instead they find a young man in a white robe who tells them that Jesus is not there but has risen. He charges them to go tell Peter and the disciples that Jesus has gone ahead to Galilee and will meet them there. But they don’t go to Peter and tell him as charged. Instead, they are afraid and run away. And Mark ends his story here as evidenced by early manuscript copies and the later inclusion of what is known as the Marcan Appendix. The last verse of Mark before the Marcan Appendix, 16:8, ends with the women who are told of Christ's resurrection leaving and not telling anyone. Why? I don't think anyone can say with certainty. What we do know is that the v. 8 ending is the oldest existent forms of Mark that we have. Not that there was variety in these oldest texts but that they end at v. 8 and others speaking of the Gospel affirm this was the case in the manuscript copies available. Early variants that then follow v. 8 seem to lack cohesive language to suggest the replacement of lost language. Rather, they seem to be there to fill in a gap based on various author's understanding of what followed. It could be that there were oral traditions being passed around and the written variants reflect this. But we don't know.

How the authors of Matthew and Luke deal with this further supports that the text they had ended at what we know as v. 8. So what do Matthew and Luke do with this story when they again lack guiding information in their sources?

Luke, at the end of chapter 23, tells us about the women seeing the body laid to rest and going on the day after the Sabbath to find the stone rolled away. But instead of a young man in a white robe, they are met by two men in heavenly glowing robes who tell them Christ is risen and to go to the apostles. They remember that Jesus said he would rise and do as they were told. Luke tells us of Peter visiting the tomb and wondering. He tells us of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. He tells us of a direct appearance to the 11 who were still in Jerusalem. He tells them all this was in the fulfillment of scripture and Christ ascends into heaven. The 11 rejoice and remain in Jerusalem going often to the temple until Acts tells us about the Day of Pentecost.

Matthew inserts a little piece between the women seeing the stone placed before the tomb and finding it moved away the day after the Sabbath. He has the priest going to Pilate on the Sabbath (but saying the day after preparation day instead of the Sabbath. Kind of like saying the day after Christmas Eve) and claiming that they heard that Jesus proclaim he would rise on the third day after his death. Matthew tells us they feared a deception and ask for a guard and for the tomb to be sealed. Pilate grants this. So when the women go and find the tomb open Matthew has a little story about an earthquake and angels that scare the guards so they leave and we learn they are paid off to tell no one what they saw. Instead, they are to tell everyone they found the small plates of Nephi because God knew the 116 would be stolen…wait, wrong story. They seem similar to me so I mix those up sometimes… ;) Anyway, they are told to tell everyone that Jesus’ disciples stole the body and spread the lie about being resurrected on the 3rd day. Matthew tells us this lie is prevalent among the Jews even in his day. Matthew tells us the women go to the disciples being afraid (as Mark told us) BUT ALSO FULL OF JOY so they are doing as told. Then Jesus appears to them on the way to the disciples and tells them to have the disciples meet him in Galilee. They do so, and the 11 go to Galilee to meet Jesus who tells them they are to be filled with power and go to all nations. The end.

John has his own version of events and, as we’ve noticed with the birth narrative, he isn’t too concerned with what Mark or anyone else that we know of had to say. John includes many different stories of what happened during the passion, has Jesus executed on a different day to make sure it is clear he is the Lamb of God being sacrificed as the other lambs on the day before Passover. We have an entirely different account of who came to the tomb, who saw what, what was said, who saw Jesus where and when, and ultimately an extra chapter that the original author may not have written as the final word.

Like with the birth narrative, when Matthew and Luke are without a common source, their stories diverge wildly. One has the disciples remaining in Jerusalem, while the other has them go to Galilee. One has Jesus appear to many people, the other has Jesus appear to a few. Neither account matches up once we lose Mark as the common touchstone.

What we know: Mark was the first of the Gospels to be written and the other Gospel writers used Mark while not being eyewitnesses to any of the events described. This includes the resurrection of Christ. The closest we come, as modern readers, to the resurrection is in the word of Paul in 1 Cor. 15 who shares what he was taught from James and Peter. It's here he tells the reader that to have hope in Christ in this life only would be miserable. Thus, Christ had to have been raised from the dead.

Given the nature of this board I will only in passing point out that the many, many issues with the Book of Mormon which for Mormons is intended to be a second and confirming witness of Jesus Christ don't help the Mormon believer out in trying to resolve the question based on scriptural evidence.

I see no reasonable support for arguing that the central messages of the Christian gospel should be assumed as a given rather than treated skeptically.

[_Mary]

Loved your post. Add to that the Pauline account of the resurrection witnesses which again contradict the gospel accounts. (Paul's writings being earlier than Mark and 1 Cor 15 containing a pre-Pauline section which takes us right back into the earliest decades after the crucifixion).

3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 

Were the gospels meant to be read literally? Papias didn't have much time for the written word (versions of gospel accounts) for a good reason imho.

The Protevangelium is interesting because it is so obviously mythical that it didn't make it to canon, yet it was read widely and very much loved by the later church. We have no problem accepting it as myth..not so with the gospel accounts of the birth and resurrection. We tend to turn a blind eye to their contradictions and what those contradictions imply.

[_honorentheos]

Loved your post. Add to that the Pauline account of the resurrection witnesses which again contradict the gospel accounts. (Paul's writings being earlier than Mark and 1 Cor 15 containing a pre-Pauline section which takes us right back into the earliest decades after the crucifixion).

3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.[d] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 

Were the gospels meant to be read literally? Papias didn't have much time for the written word (versions of gospel accounts) for a good reason imho.

The Protevangelium is interesting because it is so obviously mythical that it didn't make it to canon, yet it was read widely and very much loved by the later church. We have no problem accepting it as myth..not so with the gospel accounts of the birth and resurrection. We tend to turn a blind eye to their contradictions and what those contradictions imply.

Thanks for sharing that, Mary. The contradiction between Paul and the gospels certainly helps underscore the issue. I had not considered the protoevangelium in the argument but that's a great point as well. As someone of Mormon heritage and more limited exposure to other faithful Christian views, the term was new to me honestly, but once I looked it up I thought, "Brilliant". :) I would add to it the Christian repurposing of Isaiah from it's Jewish interpretations and mistranslations from the Greek, through which one can see point after point of challenging basic Christian concepts having their origin in obviously flawed scriptural creation. Mormonism is doubly challenged by this in that it claims to recognize the problem, then gets it all wrong while claiming divine assistance in the process.

I hope those like MG who point to the resurrection and message of Christ risen being fundamental to how they approach questions regarding the Book of Mormon, one's willingness to take on the worldview of a given religion, or otherwise filter the effects of evidence used in conversations about the LDS church on the board can recognize that the failure to apply appropriate skepticism instead seems to be an act of willful ignorance rather than merely one possible position among many.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Interesting thread, Honor! Thanks for introducing this topic.

Have you ever read the book, "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" by Laurence Gardener? It deals with both of these issues and is a fascinating read. Gardner has done fascinating research pertaining to Jewish Church traditions which adds different explanations for the birth and resurrection narratives.

One thing rather interesting that Gardener brings out is that Mary was actually not a virgin in the sense that we think of virgins today. Virgin merely meant that Mary was a young girl. The Michael, or the angel who appeared to Joseph, was actually a Church authority pardoning Mary and Joseph's consummation of Jesus, stating that he still had all oldest child rights in the Messianic line. Apparently, there are only certain times of the year when royal blood line betrothed couples are permitted to consummate so that offspring can be born during certain times of the year.

It is a fascinating read. You can buy a Kindle version here: http://www.amazon.com/Bloodline-Holy-Gr ... 1931412928

I own the hardback and it has been several years since I have read it. Now you're inspiring me to reread it.

[_huckelberry]

Many modern scholars agree those who built a church up around Jesus after his death believed he was the Jewish Messiah. This would mean they believed Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah which were popular in Roman Palestine at the time.
........
Since the Messiah has to be raised from the dead, and Jesus was the Messiah, it is only natural that both accounts tell us this is so. Both Matthew and Luke had Mark as a source, so we should expect to see Mark’s narrative in the account of the passion leading to the resurrection.

honorentheos,
I am unsure what source you have for this idea that a Messiah has to be raised from the dead. It is quite questionable.

I think it is very clear from the historical record that the early christian believers believed that Jesus was raised from the dead. They may have been surprised. I think the variations you point out make it clear that the transmission of that belief has a good deal of inexactitude in the detalls. I do Old Testament see any way that that would change the observation that early Christians believed he rose. It could suggest uncertainty about the empty tomb. It does not negate or contradict the empty tomb. It suggests there was enough distance in transmission of the story to say it is possible that the tomb was a legendary development and expression. Or perhaps it was real and the details in the story are garbled.

[_honorentheos]

Hi huckelberry,

That's a good point, and something that slipped through our previous discussion a few years back. Thank you for pointing it out and I should have edited the material when I posted it. I think it's better said that the gospel writers were compelled by the death of Jesus who they believed to be the messiah to find ways to reconcile the prophecies of the Messiah with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Ehrmann dealt with this in his book about how Jesus became God as I recall but it's been a while since I've read it.

We have an explicit example of this use of Messianic beliefs being explained to account for Jesus' death taking place in Acts 2, where Peter teaches:

14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.
...

22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
25 David said about him:

“‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.

26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,

27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.

28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’[e]

29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.
30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.
31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay.
32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.
33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”’[f]
36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

[_honorentheos]

Interesting thread, Honor! Thanks for introducing this topic.

Have you ever read the book, "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" by Laurence Gardener? It deals with both of these issues and is a fascinating read. Gardner has done fascinating research pertaining to Jewish Church traditions which adds different explanations for the birth and resurrection narratives.

One thing rather interesting that Gardener brings out is that Mary was actually not a virgin in the sense that we think of virgins today. Virgin merely meant that Mary was a young girl. The Michael, or the angel who appeared to Joseph, was actually a Church authority pardoning Mary and Joseph's consummation of Jesus, stating that he still had all oldest child rights in the Messianic line. Apparently, there are only certain times of the year when royal blood line betrothed couples are permitted to consummate so that offspring can be born during certain times of the year.

It is a fascinating read. You can buy a Kindle version here: http://www.amazon.com/Bloodline-Holy-Gr ... 1931412928

I own the hardback and it has been several years since I have read it. Now you're inspiring me to reread it.

Hi Jesse I haven't read the book but it sounds interesting. I checked and it isn't available through the local library system so I'll have to add it to the list and pick it up online. Because I don't have enough books, for sure. :)

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Many modern scholars agree those who built a church up around Jesus after his death believed he was the Jewish Messiah. This would mean they believed Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah which were popular in Roman Palestine at the time.
........
Since the Messiah has to be raised from the dead, and Jesus was the Messiah, it is only natural that both accounts tell us this is so. Both Matthew and Luke had Mark as a source, so we should expect to see Mark’s narrative in the account of the passion leading to the resurrection.

honorentheos,
I am unsure what source you have for this idea that a Messiah has to be raised from the dead. It is quite questionable.

I think it is very clear from the historical record that the early christian believers believed that Jesus was raised from the dead. They may have been surprised. I think the variations you point out make it clear that the transmission of that belief has a good deal of inexactitude in the detalls. I do Old Testament see any way that that would change the observation that early Christians believed he rose. It could suggest uncertainty about the empty tomb. It does not negate or contradict the empty tomb. It suggests there was enough distance in transmission of the story to say it is possible that the tomb was a legendary development and expression. Or perhaps it was real and the details in the story are garbled.

In the book I mentioned to Honor, and also in another book I have read, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", there are musings and evidence which points to a couple of theories involving Christ's death actually being faked, and his followers helping him escape to France.

There is also talk of Christ being married to Mary Magdeline and fathering children with her.

[_Chap]

Maybe a bit of caution is needed in taking Gardner as an unbiased researcher in such matters?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Gardner

Gardner referred to himself as "Chevalier Labhran de Saint Germain", and "Presidential Attache to the European Council of Princes" (the existence of which cannot be verified[4]) also "Prior of the Celtic Churches Sacred Kindred of Saint Columbia".[5] He also claimed to be Jacobite Historiographer Royal of the Royal House of Stewart. He was a supporter of Michael Lafosse, in particular his claims to be descended from the House of Stuart, which Gardner claimed was descended from Jesus Christ.[6][7]

Here are a couple of reviews of his book:

The second review, by a genealogist well qualified to pass judgment on Gardner's writing, contains the interesting sentence "I tried hard to be fair to this book but the more I read it the worse it gets."

Review
Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed
Laurence Gardner
(Shaftesbury, UK: Element Books, 1996)
Reviews from Publishers Weekly and Charles W. Evans-Günther

Review I: Publishers Weekly

One of the most important developments of the last 50 years in religious studies has been the emergence of suppressed and forgotten texts and lore. A flood of new archeological knowledge and newly discovered ancient texts sheds unexpected light on the traditions of Christian worship. Into this flood, Gardner, who holds the office of the Jacobite Historiographer Royal of the Royal House of Stewart, would like to inject yet another revelation: the bloodline of Jesus Christ. According to Gardner, Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and she was pregnant with his child when he was crucified at Qumran, not Golgotha as it is usually thought. Mary delivered a male child before she and her son were spirited out of Palestine to France, where she died. This child became the scion of an amazing genealogy that terminates (surprise!) in the House of Stuart. Furthermore, that house did not expire but flourishes to this day. This book is an amazing patchwork of scholarly trappings and dizzy tomfoolery stitched together with myth and fable until it fabricates the amazing argument that indeed the Crown of England properly belongs to the Line of David through Jesus Christ himself. This is exhilarating fantasy worthy of a great romantic novel.

Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Review II: Charles W. Evans-Günther for the Journal of the Pendragon Society, Spring 1997, Volume XXVI, Nr 2.

This is a large book, over 500 pages long with 25 b/w photographs, 11 maps, 9 diagrams/illustrations, 17 charts in the body of the book, 4 diagrams/illustrations and 29 charts in the appendices, together with notes, references, appendices, bibliography and a ten page index.

This all sounds quite impressive but then so did John Morris's 'The Age of Arthur'! Unfortunately, I found this publication to be a disappointment. It varies in content and seems to move from fact into fantasy with an ease that worries me greatly. 'Bloodline of The Holy Grail' supposes to be a survey of the descendants of Jesus Christ from the 1st century to the 1990s.

I am not going to go into the complex story of the family tree of Jesus I will say that I found the way Mr Gardner uses various sources of considerable interest. This book has a vast amount of information and to go through it all, or even a part of it, would take most of the pages of this present issue of 'Pendragon'. I found myself immersed in a labyrinth of material and trying to separate the chaff from the wheat became time consuming (and after a while rather pointless!). Where to end was a problem - there being so much to comment upon. Having read the book through a couple of times (I had to do this at least to be fair that I had not missed something vital, having put it down numerous times due to boredom or falling asleep while reading) I found myself constantly returning to the genealogical charts. The study of family trees is fascinating to me and even when it has no bearing on a subject I am interested in, I am still drawn to genealogical information.

Gardner, however, brings in fictional characters into his pedigrees and does some unique twisting of information to suit the overall premise of this book. We get to read about characters like Arviragus, Bran, Lucius, Joseph of Arimathea, Coel, Galahad and Viviane as if they were historical. Surely we are dealing with mythological people here rather than persons that actually lived. Take Arviragus who became the son of Cunobelinus rather than the Brigantian rebel living during the reign of Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96). The character only appears in Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'History of the Kings of Britain'! Bran belongs to legend not to history and any connection between him and South Wales and Christianity belongs to the wishful thinking of certain antiquarians. Lucius is claimed to have been a king in Britain who is said to have requested the introduction of Christianity to the country. The earliest reference is the last decades of the 5th century and it is generally accepted now that this Lucius was not British but the king of Britium in the east of the Roman Empire. Coel is another creation of Geoffrey of Monmouth. There was a historical Coel but he lived in the north of Britain and had no connection with St Helena. The latter of course was not British at all and ample records show she was the daughter of an innkeeper, perhaps at Drepanum in Bithynia.
Joseph of Arimathea is one of those characters who have played an important part in the folklore and legend of Europe for some time. Little is found in the Gospels and none of it seems to correspond to Mr Gardner's version of the story. That Joseph was really Jesus's brother James needs to be discussed but I am going to leave that to the theologians. That Joseph became connected with the Grail stories is well documented but it is legend and not fact. At one point he is said to be called Ilid in Wales. But, if that is so, he must have had a sex change since Ilid is feminine and in fact St Julitta. Interestingly, the only person to link St Ilid with Joseph of Arimathea is Edward (Iolo Morganwg) Williams.

Later we find Viviane being "married" to Taliesin and their daughter being Ygerna who is at one point married to Gwyr Llew and later Aedan McGabran of the Dalriada. Ygerna and Aedan's son was of course Arthur who married Gwenhwyfar daughter of Leo de Grace. I must admit at this point, on the first reading, I gave up and put the book aside. I had enough and hoped that someone else would write in with a review of this publication. Unfortunately, no one did and does that say anything?! That Arthur should be the son of Aedan McGabran is not a problem. There is reference to an Arthur being Aedan's son or grandson, but this would place Arthur at the end of the sixth century being killed in a battle against the Picts and being survived by his father! The Scots have never bothered to claim that King Arthur was a son of Aedan and the earliest references to Ygerna have her as the daughter of Amlawd Wledig. Galahad also appears as the son of Lancelot and Elaine, with Lancelot being son of Ban le Benoic and Viviane daughter of Taliesin and Viviane. Not content with using fictional characters created by Chretien de Troyes, we find Titurel and Anfortas from Wolfram von Eschenbach's Grail story.

I tried hard to be fair to this book but the more I read it the worse it gets. At times I get the impression it was produced just to glorify Prince Michael of Albany, who claims descent from Bonnie Prince Charlie and has been Alexander IV, King of the Scots, since 1963. 'Bloodline of the Holy Grail' is a mishmash of various theories from numerous books including 'Jesus the Man' and 'The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail'. It also covers much familiar material as Mary Magdalene, Templars, Freemasonry and the Tarot. If you are into this sort of adventure or you are a supporter of the Jacobites, you will find this a fascinating book. It has got a bit of everything for everybody and it even has some history!

[_honorentheos]

Thanks for the additional information, Chap.

The review was interesting and fun to read in it's own right. The closing was a perfect summation:

It has got a bit of everything for everybody and it even has some history!

It sounds interesting, if more romantic than historic. I'm curious enough to check it out at some point if with a high degree of skeptism.