Chapter 28
Abbadare in the Prophecy of
The ‘Grail’ is in fact the body of Abbadare and the body of Abbadare formed
the image on the Turin shroud. I will be called ‘Mad for holding this view.
However, unless we accept Abbadare as the disguised name of Jesus, 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 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 more
mad than my previous statement above 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 withsomething else’. 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 to Abbadareand 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
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
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.
Joseph of Arimathea brought Jesus to an island which Joseph had known
previously and had dealings with as a tin trader. Maybe as others have poited
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
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.
the gracious words that came from his lips. Isn’t this Joseph’s son? they
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
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
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
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;
just the fact that the tomb of
Joseph is buried deep in the island.
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.’
Goldsworthys 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 in the prophecy of Melkin and leaving this altered edition of the
prophecy of Melkin to posterity. It is therefore Goldsworthys 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 basis of
the Melkin prophecy originally.
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
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
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 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 on which 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 recyclesfrom Pytheas’ account. The Rock is treacherous to land on
the shoreline being inhospitable and open to seaward. No ferign vessel is able
to land at all states of the tide and in nearly all conditions as is the case with
Burgh Island; the spit being protected for the most part by the Island position
to seaward.
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
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.
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 scholars. The reason large quantities of tin were taken to the
island is because the Island of Ictis stored all the tin brought to it by tin
streamers working on the rivers behind the island so that visiting trading
vessels could take on cargo while beached below. Cunliffe does not even
know why Burgh Island was called Ictis. Pytheas referred to the Island as
ikhthys island or ‘fish island’ as the whole of Bigbury bay used to go dark
with Fish as I explained in the chapter on Pytheas.
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…. The amazing display of Melkin’s geometry locating Ineswitrin is
now derived from a satirical lay referring to deceased Baybars apparently
refers to a location anywhere else but Britain. This really should take the
prize and it is evident who supplied the source material!!!!1