OK, so we’re in crazy Holy Bloodline mode for the next week or so as America Unearthed resurrects the Da Vinci Code and Scott Wolter and Steve St. Clair imagine themselves the heroes of a fast-paced thriller. To that end, Steve St. Clair has offered his analysis of a 1531 sculpture of the Holy Sepulcher at the Abbey of St. Remi in France, the same sculpture Scott Wolter asserts represents a pregnant Mary Magdalene wailing at the tomb of Jesus.
The statue, with its eight figures, was never thought to depict Mary Magdalene until the Holy Blood, Holy Grail nonsense began. Traditionally, the three women in the statue are said to depict the Virgin Mary, Salome, and Mary, the mother of James the Less. However, since the relevant biblical passages (Mark 15:47, 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25; etc.) also mention Mary Magdalene, it could be argued that the woman was meant to be the Magdalene. What is interesting, though, is that the woman with upraised hands was never described as pregnant or even fat before the Holy Blood, Holy Grail nonsense began.
Here’s a fun fact: In discussing this, Steve St. Clair managed to demonstrate that he (a) does not read French, and (b) consequently missed the major facts that are revealed by simply reading the plaque near the sculpture.
I bring this up because over on his website, St. Clair makes a big deal out of the plaque and then proceeds to mistranslate it (I confirmed that he used Google Translate, which provides the exact wording he uses in his “translation”), thereby allowing him to make the following error: “I have read that the statue of the pregnant Mary came from the church of the former commander of the Grosse Tour, the headquarters of the European Templars, demolished in 1808. There are, however, no sources I can find for this claim.” There’s a good reason for that.
So let’s start at the beginning. Here is how St. Clair Googled the plaque’s translation:
This sepulcher made in 1531 and transferred the temple here in 1803 has been given to the Church of St Remi By Mr. L' emoine-Doriot which adorns the chapel in 1814.
Obviously, that isn’t right. So, let’s check the French text and offer the correct translation:
Ce sépulcre fait en 1531 et transféré du Temple ici en 1803 a été donne à l’eglise de St. Remi par Monsieur Lemoine-Doriot qui a orné cette chapelle en 1814.
So, what does an accurate translation tell us? First, the sculpture was moved into position by a known individual, M. Lemoine-Doriot, who as it happens was one of the benefactors who funded the renovations of St. Remi in 1813 and 1814. But more importantly, we can see that the sculpture was transferred from the “Temple.” It was not itself a temple, as St. Clair’s translation would have it. Now why is this? Well, the “Temple” in question refers to the church of the Commandery of the Temple of Reims—logical enough since the Abbey of St. Remi is in Reims. This building is in fact a former Templar structure, but it is not the Grosse Tour, the Great Tower, located in Paris in the enclos du Temple, a fortress that passed into French royal hands after 1307 and served as the royal prison down to the Revolution. Napoleon ordered its demolition in 1808 to stop royalist pilgrimages to it. The church of the Commandery at Reims was the Church of La Trinité, built in the early eleventh century and bestowed on the Templars by Archbishop Henry of Reims in 1170, after the Templars had had de facto control for a few years. The Templars used the church and its adjoining lands to make money, but they were not the first owners of the church, nor the last. The church is famous for its Obituary of the Temple of Reims, a necrology begun before the Templar period but maintained under them down to 1307.
At any rate, the old Templar church was not in Templar hands in 1531, obviously enough, though it was still known as the Temple in their honor down to the Napoleonic era.
St. Clair didn’t do the research, so he misses facts that would have supported his own claims better than the speculation he ropes in instead. He finishes his blog post by asserting that the Science Channel’s Biblical Conspiracies show made a compelling case that the possibility that Michelangelo planned to place a cherub (actually, a putto) on the Pieta proves that the sculptor meant the statue to depict Jesus and Mary Magdalene, with the putto representing the pagan Cupid, symbolizing their eternal love. However, when Michelangelo worked, the putto was not a Classical heresy, as St. Clair writes, but a Christianized symbol made safe for holy art by Donatello. Michelangelo included putti in several pieces, including the Sistine Chapel, where the Pope somehow failed to throw a hissy fit about how it was destroying the Catholic Church.
On the strength of this “evidence” St. Clair splits the differences and doesn’t actually come to a conclusion, despite presenting only positive evidence for a Holy Bloodline in his post:
That still doesn’t prove a bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene existed and it doesn’t prove that the Saint-Clair family were involved. But it suggests this idea of a bloodline was alive and well before either the Masons or Michael Baigent came along.
It really doesn’t. The “Bloodline” symbolism only exists through selective evidence, cherry-picking, and reading modern interpretations into gaps in history.
Oh, but over on his blog, Scott Wolter all but declares* Steve St. Clair the True Heir of Jesus. Now that is living the Code. It looks like Kathleen McGowan has competition!
* Note: Just to clarify, this is intentional hyperbole. Wolter only implies that he believes St. Clair to be a descendant of Jesus in a caption to a photo of St. Clair seated beneath a statue of Christ.
1/26/2015 07:21:17 am
1/26/2015 07:52:42 am
Claimed to be Magdalene here
1/26/2015 07:30:36 am
Seriously, this whole Da Vinci Code/holy bloodline thing?
1/26/2015 08:17:48 am
The St Clair connection with the Jesus bloodline is a distortion.
1/26/2015 09:03:01 am
Tim Wallace-Murphy distanced himself from the Priory of Sion and Pierre Plantard but believes in a Rex Deus dynasty and that Jesus Christ was married. Mea Culpa, this is where Steve St Clair must be coming from.
1/26/2015 09:11:20 am
I can't wait until the Bloodline believers find this article, and leave another wave of "Of course the St. Clair theory is silly, because the real bloodline is the Masons/the Reptilians/The Sacred Feminine/The Yellow King" posts.
1/26/2015 10:59:30 am
I'm not saying The Yellow King is a descendent of Jesus. I'm just saying, songs that the Hyades shall sing...
1/26/2015 02:10:16 pm
I believe the politically correct term is "Asian-American King" :P
1/28/2015 03:42:51 am
The Pale Mask could explain why Jesus is depicted as Nordic rather than Semetic.
1/28/2015 03:44:49 am
He is neither Nordic nor Semetic - dotcha know he is one of the Venus people!
1/26/2015 11:01:18 am
my stupid question: who or what is a Gisor?
1/26/2015 11:14:23 am
Gisors was an Anglo-Norman stronghold and a center of opposition to the French monarchy.
1/26/2015 11:32:08 am
Where was its location?
1/26/2015 11:41:06 am
Gisors is a commune of Upper Normandy, France. It is located 62.9 km northwest from the center of Paris.
1/26/2015 11:49:01 am
A serious educational documentary Rosslyn Chapel: A Treasure In Stone (BBC 4, 2010), presented by Lady Helen Rosslyn is highly recommended. It endorsed the claim that the Sinclairs of Rosslyn were a cadet branch of the St Clares of Gisors.
1/26/2015 11:33:51 am
Jason- went over to Scott's blog, as you suggested. = where are you getting the ''all but declared'' wordings?
1/26/2015 11:49:37 am
It's a *slight* hyperbole. In the caption to one of the photos, Wolter asks if it is a coincidence that St. Clair is depicted seated beneath a statue of Jesus, implying that Christ is his totemic ancestor.
1/26/2015 11:58:34 am
now I get how this works- your slight hyperbole...I got some ocean property in Arizona...same 'hyperbole'.
1/26/2015 02:53:47 pm
And the statue is giving the "M" sign with both hands!
1/26/2015 03:41:37 pm
JJ: please grab a dictionary.
1/26/2015 05:03:51 pm
Specifically: "Is it a coincidence that a statue of Jesus is directly behind Steve?"
1/26/2015 12:18:41 pm
Statistically if the descendants of Jesus and MM successfully propagated over the last 2000 years wouldn't a significant portion of the world's population be of the "holy bloodline"? It would seem that there would be an awful lot of people walking around with Jesus genes to one degree or another.
1/26/2015 12:39:14 pm
Well, if it's true that every European shares Charlemagne's DNA, then I guess everyone would be a Jesus descendant, too.
1/26/2015 01:08:58 pm
The only Jesus descendants that I recognize are Steve St. Clair and Kathleen McGowan. Everyone else is a pretender. Both have ironclad proof -- Steve in the way of a google translation of some French text and Kathleen's visions.
1/26/2015 01:36:02 pm
Genealogies became official through the introduction of baptismal registers. People who began recording genealogies sought assistance from nobilities and this information was recorded solely upon trust, called by subscription. Genealogists will be the first to admit the unreliability and untrustworthiness of such documentation.
1/26/2015 03:47:54 pm
Do not question my descent from Sir Lancelot, Ye of little faith!!!
1/26/2015 09:37:58 pm
Ugh. This claim is so obnoxious, because it's so easily shown to be nonsense. It doesn't even involve the intense research of opening an introductory textbook...all he has to do is go to a museum and look at nearly EVERY SINGLE PAINTING from that time period! Of *course* she looks pregnant. *All* the women looked pregnant! The clothing was *designed* to make them look pregnant (and to de-emphasize the breasts). Beauty and fashion change all the time, and yes, there was a era when the "ideal" woman had a small chest and round stomach, so of course that ideal was what most painters (and sculptors) of the era chose to portray.
1/27/2015 12:43:59 am
I suggest you go back through the blog here and find his *not so* royal St.Claires posts, if you thinks his claims are obnoxious they are nothing compared to his sad attempts at trolling Jason
1/27/2015 12:05:48 am
No I think America Unearthed is over. No forth season. The first was somewhat entertaining but the last two just plain bad. The best were Great Lakes cooper heist, newport tower and of course the dare stones which introduced Scott's classic "I disagree" when faced with a skeptic.
1/27/2015 03:54:36 am
At least those had something to do with archaeology and ... well America. This crazy Templar Jesus blood stuff is so down the rabbit hole that it has noting at all to do with the premise of the show.
1/27/2015 03:46:23 am
And if it were all true, so what? Does it make him King of Christendom?
1/27/2015 08:22:40 am
Supporters of Margaret Starbird, and she fills conference halls.
1/27/2015 09:24:46 am
please Rev Phil help me ! Wolters is destroying my Christian faith with his evidence exposing the church
1/27/2015 01:36:08 pm
1/28/2015 08:26:23 am
It is all pretty much silly nonsense about this bloodline thing, when one considers that Jesus the Nazerine was from Isreal, not England or France, and didn't look anything like a Roman painting from the Renaissance, but probably would have looked more like an Isreali from Palestine. His bloodline also would defeat the idea of his being divine and unmarried, and all that, but now would be not very shocking. The bloodline thing is also nonsense when it's all tied into other made up stuff garbled from history by fakers and cheats, and people looking to make a buck. Nobody knows what he actually looked like, but in Roman times they guessed he looked like them. French people guessed he looked like them too. (France was one of the Roman colonies too). Isreal was a Roman colony. They could get away with the rhetoric if they merely said the bloodine was not of Jesus, but of his half brothers. Surely Joseph of Aramathia had other children. It's in there. They would be mortal humans. They would also look nothing like the paintings. But no, these quacks want it to mean something that they're divine. That would be a sign of insanity. Maybe they might want to take some medication for that. But I am not a shrink, so they do not need to listen to me. PT Barnum was right.
1/29/2015 01:09:15 am
There's absolutely no reference made to Jesus being married in any of the accounts of the desposyni --- the alleged blood relatives of Jesus Christ. But to conspiracy theorists, this info could have been "censored" by the church.
1/29/2015 07:02:07 am
The apostle Paul was unmarried as well and he was a Rabbi. kind of puts a kink in their argument that Jesus should have been married
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Terms & Conditions
Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.