Rodríguez
Almenar, the founder and president of the Spanish Centre for
Sindonology (CES), gave an overview of the history of how this relic, which “is
highly likely to have been the chalice used by Christ at the Last Supper”
before his crucifixion and death, came to be in Valencia. He spoke with the
authority of a scientist who has devoted a great deal of time to studying the
subject.

The
investigation started as recently as 1959, when the archbishop of Valencia at
the time, Marcelino Olaechea,
invited archaeology professor Antonio Beltrán
to give a lecture on the relic. Professor Beltrán
categorically refused. He had not studied the subject and did not believe in
the authenticity of the relic. But Olaechea
was not put off by the professor's negative response and told him that he did
not believe in its authenticity either and was therefore keen to carry out
further investigation. He told him, “If we prove that it's not genuine, we'll
say so and that will be an end to the matter”. Impressed by the archbishop's
scientific integrity, Beltrán (who was
not a strong believer) accepted the challenge, and, much to his surprise, found
that all of the archaeological investigations pointed to the same conclusion:
it could only have originated between the first and second centuries B.C.

In fact,
what has come to be known today as the Holy Grail consists of three pieces from
different periods: the “Grail” itself, which is made of translucent stone and
dates from that time; the base, which is made of a similar material; and the
handle, which is made of highly polished gold and may date from around the 12^th
century. These parts have been added to enhance what has become a genuine relic
over the centuries.

Is all this
reason to believe that it is the genuine Holy Chalice? No. But in the words of Professor
Rodríguez Almenar, “It is
entirely possible”. What is the most direct historical evidence? Almenar explained, “The gospels are the best-documented
writings in the history of humanity”. There is no other surviving written
document from that period. For example, there is a complete version of the
Gospel of Saint John that dates from 120 A.D, shortly after it was written. The
sindonologist wondered, “How can we deny the historicity of something that
hasn't changed since then?”

The
Cenacle, the era, the route of the chalice to Huesca and Valencia... He
explained that we can learn about all of this from examining the scientific
evidence. The professor said, “It couldn't have been made of wood, as Indiana
Jones seemed to think! Wood was not a pure material and the Jews purified all
cups and plates, as declared by Christ himself”. They therefore used a very
valuable material, similar to alabaster. He went on to say, “It's absurd to suggest
that the chalice must have been made of wood just because Christ was a
carpenter”. Apart from anything else, he had not worked as a carpenter for
three years at the time.

As
a scientist, Rodríguez Almenar looks for facts. He wanted to convey this in
his lecture and was therefore very clear about one fundamental point: “In order
to study the Holy Chalice, or any other Christian relic, you have to abandon
all prejudices. So many people wax lyrical on the subject and make judgements
without having the first idea”, he concluded.