In Holy Blood, Holy Grailwe find a similar gap in the historical basis. The authors themselves characterize their ownhistorical argument, before investigating the Christian sources, with the following description: Our hypothetical scenario . . . was also preposterous . . . much too sketchy . . . rested on far too flimsy a foundation . . . could not yet in itself be supported . . . too many holes . . . too many inconsistencies and anomalies, too many loose ends.^74 After their research into Christian origins, does their evaluation change? While holding that their thesis was still probably true, the authors conclude, “We could not—and still cannot—prove the accuracy of our conclusion. It remains to some extent at least, a hypothesis.”^75 As we will see below, their thesis also has numerous gaps in argumentation.
Historically, then, such theses lack the data needed for the conclusions. Very late documents, missing evidence and faulty historical reconstructions certainly do not prove one’s case.
The fourth major problem with these theses is that, in addition to the lack of a historical basis, each exhibits decidedly illogical argumentation. The Japanese legend contains such inconsistencies as Jesus’ brother dying in his place, the fact that Jesus’ teachings reflect none of the Japanese philosophy that he supposedly learned during his “silent years” spent in Japan, and the failure to acknowledge the Christian teachings of Francis Xavier. This Catholic priest visited Japan in the sixteenth century and probably accounts for much of the Christian influence in that country.^76 Even so, it is in the works of Joyce, Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln where we perceive more glaring gaps in logic.