In The Hiram Key and The Second Messiah we explained how the building called Rosslyn Chapel, in the village of Roslin, seemed to be a Jewish/Celtic structure based on Ezekiel’s vision of the new Jerusalem and on the ruins of Herod’s Temple.
When we compared the plan of Rosslyn to that of Herod’s Temple we could see that they were identical, with the two pillars of Boaz and Jachin perfectly in place, and a massive engrailed St Clair cross on the ceiling even pointed down at the exact spot where the ‘Holy of Holies’ was kept in the Jerusalem Temple.
In particular, we argued that the oversized west wall was a copy of the ruined remains of the Herodian structure and not, as the standard theory suggested, an aborted attempt to build a huge collegiate church. Our contention was, and remains, that the scrolls removed from under the Jerusalem Temple between 1118 and 1128 are now under Rosslyn.
The launch of The Hiram Key was held in Rosslyn and Baron St Clair Bonde, the direct descendant of the 15th-century builder – William St Clair – addressed the assembled crowd in his capacity as one of the trustees of Rosslyn. He stated that the trustees also believed that Rosslyn contained something very special, and they would support an application for an archaeological investigation from a properly constituted group of appropriately qualified scholars. We were also led to believe that ‘Historic Scotland’, the governing body for all national monuments, would be very sympathetic to any such application.
After completing The Hiram Key we had the great pleasure of meeting Professor Philip Davies, the well-known biblical and Dead Sea Scrolls scholar. Philip visited Rosslyn with us and met his old friend Professor Graham Auld of Edinburgh University, and both men agreed that the architecture of the west wall was indeed recognizably Herodian in its style. When looking at the building in more depth, Philip Davies came to the opinion that there appeared to be nothing Christian about the building, except for the Victorian additions. His immediate impression was that it had been constructed to conceal some medieval secret.
Some months later we took Dr Jack Miller, a head of studies in geology from Cambridge University, to see the building. Jack pointed out that the west wall could not possibly be the beginnings of an intended collegiate church because the stones were not tied into the main building. It was, he told us, quite simply ‘a folly’. He even pointed out that the stones of the unfinished ends had been chiselled to make them look worn, like a ruin.
Jack Miller said that he would like to bring up a small team to conduct some non-invasive ground-scans and, after discussing it with the Rosslyn project manager, he organized for the best equipment to be supplied, and for a world-class expert to fly in from the Colorado School of Mines – the world’s finest underground investigators.
Unfortunately, with just days to go, permission to examine Rosslyn was withdrawn. The trustees told us in writing that any such permission would only be given if the people concerned signed a confidentiality agreement, which might even require them to deny that an investigation had taken place at all.
We refused to have any involvement under such anti-academic conditions.
In February 1998 we took two more specialist visitors to Rosslyn. Joe Peeples, President of the Jerusalem Historical Society; and the Reverend Professor James Charlesworth, Head of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at Princeton University, and also the 1998 Albright Professor of Archaeology in Jerusalem.
Both men had broken into a very busy schedule to fly into the UK, but when they saw Rosslyn they did not seem in the least disappointed. Pointing out the imitation ‘robbed stones’ of false doorways, James Charlesworth quickly spotted the clues which indicated that the west wall was a painstaking copy of the remains of Herod’s temple. As a minister himself he had intended to attend the Sunday service, but after commenting that it was clearly not a Christian building, he cancelled that idea as wholly inappropriate.
Jim’s view was that the building was decaying rapidly, and he felt that anything underneath it should be investigated quickly, because it would be deteriorating at a much faster rate.
That evening we had dinner with Baron Bonde, while listening to Professor Charlesworth’s assessment, and we advised that he should meet with Andrew Russell, another trustee, without delay. We are told that this meeting took place, and that Professor Charlesworth was invited to submit a proposal for an investigation of Rosslyn that should include leading Scottish scholars.
By a happy coincidence, Professor Charlesworth had spent several years at Edinburgh University, and so knew many of the country’s leading experts who would be required to make the case for an archaeological investigation.
Having brought together the people best qualified to investigate Rosslyn, we stepped back to let the experts proceed as they wish. It has been our good fortune to find the real meaning of Rosslyn; however, we did not feel qualified to make further input at that time.
Some months later, we were informed that a detailed proposal had been submitted to the Trustees of Rosslyn Chapel. But we have heard nothing further since.
There is evidence of older buildings under Rosslyn and it is claimed by some that there was a Roman temple of Mithras on the site. This may well be true, but we now have good reason to believe that Rosslyn is built on the site of a megalithic chamber which involves a natural cavern well below the present building. From knowledge of detailed records from ancient Masonic sources, we think that we can give good guidance on where to look for the Zadokite scrolls that rest beneath this medieval shrine.
We can only hope that people will listen. Rosslyn is ready to yield its secret.