From: Matthew Reidsrow (junkmail_at_reidsrow.com)
Date: Sat Feb 28 2004 - 07:23:06 PST
Ok. As a graduate student of philology studying the military orders, I
just have to jump in here to salvage the reputation of my beloved
Templars. First, a few clarifications to what has been said, and then
the "real" story. :)
On Feb 28, 2004, at 4:52 AM, DJ Vollkasko wrote:
>>
>> I thought the Kinghts of Templar which were to become the Freemasons
>> had
>> been destroyed by the Vatican back in the 900s.
First off, we have to make a distinction between the Order of the
Knights of the Temple (The Templars) and the Knights Templar (the
appropriation of the term by the later Masonic orders). The Templars
were founded in 1120 by a handful (9, of course: 3x3) of lay brethren
devoted to protecting pilgrims in the "Holy Land" after the first
crusade. The famed Bernard of Clairveaux wrote their rule, and they
were off and running. Now, the Vatican is a modern conception: in the
12th to 14th century (the duration of the Order) the papacy was still
trying to assert it's conceptual authority over the territories of
"Christendom" (esp: what is now England, France, and Germany, as well
as the Eastern Empire) What actually happened, as historians see it, is
that the Templars became very wealthy and powerful very quickly. No
longer confined to Palestine and Asia Minor, they were powerful
throughout Western Europe, exempt from taxation to both the papal
authority and the imperial rulers. This didn't sit well with the
rulers, and especially Philip the Simple of France, who in 1307 decided
to take down the order. So, in typical medieval style, he and his
cronies pressured the pope to give them free access here and made up
some nice rumors about the "abominations" the Templars committed and
had them all arrested and later executed.
So now were are left with the question:
> How can the very same Templar knights (Tempelritter) that have been
> destroyed (i.e. have been EOL'ed) on 900 AD by the Vatican go on and
> become
> the Freemasons 800 years later?
Good question. The story goes that Jaques de Moliere, the leader (sort
of abbot called Grandmaster) of the Templars and six cronies (note: 7,
another symbolic number) sacrificed themselves to King Philip while the
rest of the Templars escaped 3 days before the "surprise" attack
throughout the Western empire and fled to Scandinavia and Ireland. A
few (read, hundreds) years later, the Knights Templar are popping up,
associated with secret brotherhoods (who are all somehow related to
each other: Rosicrutians, Neo-Cathars, etc.) and eventually the masons.
But the fun doesn't end there. The Templars (and their descendents the
Knights Templar) have been associated with everything from the Shroud
of Turin and the Veronica Cloth (one of Philip's accusations was that
they worshipped a head - many believe that the Shroud and the Veronica
Cloth are the same thing, only the Veronica cloth was the Shroud folded
up so only the face showed) to the Holy Grail (and even today, read the
Da Vinci Code (but ignore its incredible historically inaccuracies, and
claims of confidence that are really highly debated in the
historical/adademic world).
>> I seem to remember that in (I think) the sixth centuary the then pope
>> had a templer king, a direct decendant of Jesus, given that the
>> vatican
>> pretends to be Christian this makes them on opposite sides,
>
So this is sort a a conglomeration of stories. :) The Merovingian order
(the predecessors to the Throne of the Carolingians in what would
become the Western Roman Empire) were said to be stock from Jesus of
Nazareth. This comes from two assertions, neither of which is supported
heavily by historical documentation, but still speculated upon (as
there is some evidence that at least some of it is accurate) The first
is that Mary Magdeline and Jesus of Nazareth were married and had
children. Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code does a pretty good job for the
most part of laying out the historical evidence we have for that (which
isn't much) - and for pointing out the 6th century smear campaign of
Mary's name by Pope Gregory the Great. The second is the theory that
Mary ended up in Aix en Provence, after being exiled from Palestine.
The problem with this is that there is no evidence before the 11th
century for this idea, and it is based on an identity problem put forth
by regory in the 6th century. Gregory made Mary Magdeline a prostitute
(which does not fit with the Christian Canonical or non-canonical
Scriptural writings.) by equating her with all of the other Marys in
the New Testament. Unfortunately, 50% of the women in Palestine at the
time of Jesus of Nazareth were named either Salome or Mary. :) So the
rumor from the 11th century says that Mary Magdelene and her brother
Lazarus were exiled. Only Mary the sister of Lazarus and Mary Magdelene
were not the same person. In the 11th century we do have strong Mary
cults in Frankish Gaul, but also in Egypt, where the Gospel of Mary was
found. So, it's tough to say with certainty, but the king certainly
wasn't a Templar. :)
And back to our regularly scheduled programming. :)
Matthew Reidsma
Boston, Mass, U.S.A.
matthew_at_reidsrow.com
http://newtonnews.org : One stop shopping for the Green connected mind.
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 28 2004 - 08:00:03 PST