Shropshire's Secrets

The Holy Relics

30 A.D. The Last Supper. The Bible records the incident with the cup - Matthew 26: 26-28

'And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The Crucifixion. The Bible mentions Joseph of Arimathea and his internment of Christ's body (Matthew 27: 57-60)

'When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

In Mark (15: 43) Joseph is mentioned as an honourable counsellor.

In John 20:40 it mentions that Joseph wound the body of Jesus in linen clothes with the spices.

2000 years after the event, can we begin to imagine what the immediate effect the Crucifixion would have had on the followers of Jesus, or even what effect it has had on Christians since?
It is fairly logical to assume that any memorabilia of Jesus would have immediate value to his disciples and followers, and that any connection, through those disciples and followers, to later generations would be of paramount importance.
Let us look at some examples. There was no body, as the Bible tells of the body of Jesus ascending to Heaven. But a number of other items may have survived. One such item is the Turin Shroud which has, for many years, been the object of research by people trying to prove or disprove its authenticity. Then there are splinters from the cross on which he was crucified of which many are said to survive as relics throughout the world. But of most importance would have been the very utensils that Jesus used at the Last Supper.

Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

If the containers for both bread and wine still survived, would they not be the ultimate in physical memorabilia?
Another form of memorabilia may have been the very words of Jesus, particularly when spoken to an individual rather than a group, which could be repeated as proof of one's ultimate connection with God, and this personal connection could be considered of great importance.
According to the Catholic doctrine, the Pope is a successor of Peter who was the only one authorised by Jesus to conduct mass. But it is believed by some that Joseph of Arimathea was given last minute instructions by Jesus, and it was thus believed that Joseph, not Peter, was the immediate successor. This belief was continued in this country in the fourth century in the form Pelagianism which questioned whether the apostolic succession originated with St. Peter.

In 380 A.D. Pelagius was so confident of his belief that he left for Rome where he came under conflict with the Church of Rome, but the belief continued in this country and even became more widespread.

In 416 A.D. The Roman Church proclaimed that the teachings of Pelagius constitute a heresy. At that time, it is possible that these differences in religious fundamentals also coincided with political leanings as it seems likely that those supporting imperialism followed orthodox Catholicism, whilst those with a more nationalistic lean supported Pelagianism, but it must be remembered that they were all Christians.

Later, in 429 A.D. Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre and an envoy of the Catholic Church, was sent to Britain to combat the pelagianism. According to his biographer, Constantius of Lyon, he initially met with success at St. Albans, and continued through the country, converting those he met. Then he met with Vortigern the king who ruled most of central and southern Britain at that time at the capital. As the most important city of that time was Viriconium, it would make it the capital of most of Britain. A capital city which supported Pelagianism (and its connections with Joseph of Arimathea?)

Pelagianism cannot be verified as specifically originating from the teachings of Joseph of Arimathea, but it IS recorded in Vatican documents, some of them dating from before the 4th century, that Joseph of Arimathea founded a church in the 'far north'. In doing God's work it is most likely that Joseph of Arimathea would take with him any relics he had collected from the time when Jesus was alive. Indeed, many centuries later, Robert de Boron mentions Avalon as being the destination of Joseph of Arimathea and those relics.
Before we leave the subject of Joseph of Arimathea, it is worth remembering that Joseph was not a run of the mill disciple. He was a rich man, probably a merchant, accustomed to travelling and a member of the Jewish Council. When he became a follower of Jesus it is possible that he kept his new beliefs secret initially for fear of reprisals from the society he moved in. Because of his position in the Jewish society it is obvious that he would have connections, and it is feasible when one reads that he is said to have obtained the cup used at the Last Supper from Pontius Pilate and then used it to collect the blood of Jesus at his Crucifixion. Later we will find reference to The Fisher King and The Rich Fisher. All Christ's disciples were 'fishers of men' and many had been fishermen. Joseph of Arimathea was a rich Jew. He could be termed a rich fisher (of men) ?

Not all the places that Joseph of Arimathea, or his supporters, visited are know or recorded, but one can make a guess. It is logical that he would visit the important towns, abbeys and churches. Viriconium would certainly fit into that list. But what about Glastonbury in the West Country which claims links with Joseph of Arimathea? Well, the truth of the matter is that most historians question Glastonbury's claimed connections with a lot of things, including Joseph of Arimathea. In 1190, Robert de Boron wrote his poem Joseph d'Arimathie. In it he mentions that Joseph of Arimathea brought the Grail to Britain and the Vale of Avalon, but he does not mention Glastonbury. However, at that time there was an urgent need for money at Glastonbury as six years earlier a fire had destroyed Glastonbury Abbey. Money was needed to rebuild and the money had to come from pilgrims.
At that time, pilgrims were big money and where often the main source of income. There was big money to be made from 'relics' and if they were not to hand they were bought and sold by churches to increase their income. It was not long after the publication of Robert de Boron's poem that the monks published a revised version of its history and in it they claimed that the church at Glastonbury had been founded by Joseph of Arimathea, even though this was NOT mentioned in earlier editions of the Abbey's history. Further more, in 1190, during the rebuilding, the monks at Glastonbury 'discovered' the remains of three saints (one of whom is known to have rested in peace at Canterbury for the previous two hundred years) plus the tomb of King Arthur and Guinevere complete with a inscription which read 'Here lies the body of King Arthur in the Isle of Avalon.' Rather a convenient way of boosting the tourist trade, one might think. As a result of these discoveries and the increase in pilgrims, Glastonbury Abbey was rebuilt to a point where it was one of the most splendid buildings in England. If nothing else, you must admire their enterprise.
But back to the physical memorabilia, and the ultimate question;

What is the Grail?
By dictionary definition, the Grail is the cup (or platter) used by Jesus at the Last Supper. which features in Medieval Legend. The origin of the word is the Medieval Latin gradalis, which means cup.
According to Pears Cyclopaedia, the Legend of the Holy Grail is a tale of Celtic origin where the grail was the cup which Christ used at the Last Supper brought to England by Joseph of Arimathea. It is worth remembering that the Lord's Supper (Communion) was an established part of Christian worship in this country as early as the mid-fifties AD which would reinforce Joseph of Arimathea's possible connection with this country.

If Joseph of Arimathea or his followers DID visit Britain it is unlikely he, or they, would have not visited somewhere as important as Viriconium. If Joseph of Arimathea or his followers DID leave behind religious artifacts, Viriconium could have been their resting place. But as yet we haven't defined what the Grail is.

Perhaps a more accurate description might be that the Grail is a Holy Relic. In searching for it, the searcher gains knowledge and wisdom, perhaps leading to the saying that 'travel broadens the mind' if nothing else! One can easily imagine that after the Crucifixion, many of Jesus' followers retained items that He had used as a 'religious mementos' of Him. Such items might even include ALL the items used at the Last Supper, or the items, such as jars, used in His internment. In other words, there might be more than one Holy Relic (or Grail) to find. Now that's an idea which could complicate matters, and it does complicate matters by what happened in 327 A.D.

In 327 A.D. Empress Helena, wife of Emperor Constantine the Great, ordered the excavation of the site where Jesus was said to have been entombed. Amongst the relics found was a cup which was believed to have been the one used by Mary Magdalene to collect Christ's blood. This cup, because of its connection with Mary was thought to be the most holy relic in Christendom and is known as the Chalice of Mary or the Marian Chalice. But this cup could not have any connection with Joseph of Arimathea and any of the artifacts he may have brought as he came to Britain before this tomb was excavated.

In 410 A.D. Rome fell to the Visigoths and Alaric. But prior to its fall, there were some in Rome who felt that there was a necessity for part of Rome's religious heritage to survive, and it is documented that sacred artifacts, including the cup found by Empress Helena, were sent to Britain for safe-keeping. Where in Britain is not specifically named, but perhaps we can guess. At that time the principle towns in England where London, Lincoln, Viriconium and York. The furthest from any potential threat at that time was Viriconium, and before the end of the century all but Viroconium had been overrun by invading forces. It is therefore possible that these artifacts ended up at Viriconium, the largest of the Roman towns. Now I know this is a large supposition for you to accept, but it does create the intriguing thought that perhaps the religious artifacts that Rome thought important AND those of Joseph of Arimathea might have ended up at Viriconium.
Unbelievable? Did you know that the later Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that "In this year the Romans collected all the treasures which were in Britain and hid some in the earth so that no-one afterwards could find them, and some they took with them into Gaul."

Shropshire's Secrets
Will we ever be able to prove conclusively that Holy Relics found their way to Shropshire? Sadly, I think the answer is no, and even if we did I doubt such proof would be accepted. This, I believe, is because the Christian Church is far too established for it to revise its beliefs on the basis of new revelations. As proof of this, may I remind you of the great number of scrolls found in the last hundred years which have been all but ignored by the established church.

In 1945, in Egypt, two Arab farmers uncovered a fourth-century copy of the Gospel of Thomas which appears to pre-date any surviving copies of the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Two years later, (1947) a group of ancient Jewish documents were discovered near the Dead Sea. Now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of these have been authentically dated as being from before the time of Christ, and together comprise almost the whole of the Old Testament.

In his book, The Search for the Grail, Graham Phillips claims to have traced a small onyx cup and connected it with Shropshire, King Arthur and the Fitz Warine family. Graham Phillips continues by suggesting that this onyx cup MAY have been believed at one time to be the Marian Chalice. (See 327 A.D. abpve)

I have absolutely no reason to doubt his claims, and his subsequent conclusions on his discovery make for fascinating reading. But I'm not sure whether there is any need to prove, one way or the other, that Holy Relics found their way to what is present-day Shropshire.
Throughout our religious history there has been a need for man to search for truth and knowledge, as well as to seek spiritual comfort from the belief that relics hold an important religious significance to their life. (The history of our abbeys and churches is riddled with examples of relics being the reason for pilgrimages and for the subsequent strengthening of beliefs. Even Shrewsbury Abbey is recorded as importing relics, in the form of the bones of St. Winifred, to help strengthen the beliefs of its pilgrims by seeing such relics, and, naturally, increase the income of the Abbey.)
The important thing for most people is that they have a belief, and if the former inhabitants of present-day Shropshire, during the last two thousand years obtained comfort and strength from their belief that they had possession of, or needed to find, Holy Relics, then who are we to condemn their beliefs?

Perhaps, in searching out the history of what is today Shropshire, we need to look at a wider history. Perhaps in studying early Christianity, the early Roman Catholic Church, and the administration of the Roman Empire we would find details of events which subsequently shaped the early history of our county. (continued on next page)