30,474
edits
Holy Grail: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
m (→The significance of the Grail today: fixed typo) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== Origins of the Grail legends == | == Origins of the Grail legends == | ||
According to the legacy of Arthurian tales, Joseph of Arimathea travelled from Jerusalem to Glastonbury soon after the crucifixion, carrying the Holy Grail. Joseph is something of a mystery man in the New Testament. After the crucifixion of Jesus he suddenly appears on the scene, boldly asks Pilate for Jesus’ body, winds it in linen cloth, lays it in what may be his own tomb, and disappears. There are stories about him, not found in the Gospels, that only add to the mystery. Legend has it that Joseph took the cup from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper and brought it to Glastonbury, which was then an island in southwest England. | According to the legacy of Arthurian tales, Joseph of Arimathea travelled from Jerusalem to Glastonbury soon after the crucifixion, carrying the Holy Grail. Joseph is something of a mystery man in the New Testament. After the crucifixion of Jesus he suddenly appears on the scene, boldly asks Pilate for Jesus’ body, winds it in linen cloth, lays it in what may be his own tomb, and disappears. There are stories about him, not found in the [[Gospels]], that only add to the mystery. Legend has it that Joseph took the cup from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper and brought it to Glastonbury, which was then an island in southwest England. | ||
There is little explanation for the fact that the earliest surviving versions of these stories date from the twelfth century. To some, this sudden appearance sounds like a simple invention by medieval bards, just another romanticization attached to King Arthur. While this may be true, there is a body of evidence—archaeological fact, ancient legend, and tradition—which is hard to dismiss as pure make-believe. Even if this material be only partially true, the questions it raises, the assertions it makes, are hard to ignore. | There is little explanation for the fact that the earliest surviving versions of these stories date from the twelfth century. To some, this sudden appearance sounds like a simple invention by medieval bards, just another romanticization attached to King Arthur. While this may be true, there is a body of evidence—archaeological fact, ancient legend, and tradition—which is hard to dismiss as pure make-believe. Even if this material be only partially true, the questions it raises, the assertions it makes, are hard to ignore. | ||