Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0/Black Crawling Systems Archive Release 1.0 (L0pht Heavy Industries, Inc.)(1997).ISO/tezcat/Historical/Knights_Templar.txt

Text File | 1996-07-08 | 24KB | 379 lines

From the Radio Free Michigan archives

ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot

If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to
[e-mail].
------------------------------------------------


  "Every age has its own ideals of beauty, goodness and personality, but the
practical joke is universal and timeless.  It had all started almost as a
boyish prank one day.  Hugh de Payens and a friend decided to hide by a
watering place on the open road where the pilgrim transports were wont to
stop for refreshment and which consequently was a favorite Saracen ambush.
Imagine - as they might have told their cronies afterwards - the
consternation of the Infidel marauders when they found the tables turned..."
                        - Edith Simon
                            "The Piebald Standard"

  Perhaps in 1959, when this passage had been published, the romantic ideals
of a "boyish prank" developing into the mysterious and enigmatic Knights of
the Temple of Solomon seemed the best explanation for the Order's founding.
In it's day, the whole idea might have enticed more than a few other nobles
and knights in the East to participate in this sort of activity.
  However, there are three important points to consider in hindsight.
  First, the Knights Templar started off as the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of
Christ and the Temple of Soloman.  These Knights had a responsibility to
defend pilgrims in the Holy Land and took vows similar to those of the
contemporary priesthood.  Vows that eventually included chastity and poverty,
which would seem to restrict some rather "boyish" activities.
  Second, Hugues de Payen had made no secret of the fact that the life
which the Templars were leading was wearing on himself and other members
of the Order.  The tone of some letters indicates the Templars were on the
verge of disbanding the Order.
  Third, acording to contemporary historian Guillaume de Tyre (who was
historian to the court of Jerusalem from 1175 to 1185, and hence was
writing about the foundation of the Templars some seventy years later),
the Knights originally consisted of nine brethen, the same number as in 1129.
Actually, there were definatly 10 members in 1129, and probabaly more.
  Given the fact that these ten members lived by a religious lifesyle with
very few others to share their plight, it seems that dispair and discontentment
would become a problem quickly.  If these ten men were living such "humble"
lifestyles for so long with little or no help, what inspired them to stay
doing it for a few weeks, let alone several years?

THE ORIGIN OF THE ORDER OF THE TEMPLE

  In looking for the reasons for the establishment of the Knights of the
Temple, one needs to determine who the founders were and what their motivations
were.  In the case of the Templars, however, that proves to be more difficult.
Not only did the Templar's founders live almost 900 years ago, but the first
contemporary historian to make record of the Order wasn't writing about them
until neerly half a century later.
  Information about the foundation of the Order comes from Guillaume de Tyre,
historian from 1167 to 1184.  Of the historians to mention the Templars before
him, Jacques de Vitrey mentions only the Templars performance at Damascus in
October of 1129, and Odo de Deuil mentions the Templars only in passing in his
comentary on activities following Vezelay in 1146.  Fulk de Chartress,
historian to the court in Jerusalem in the 1110s made no mention of the
Knights, despite Badouin II's endorsement and bestowment of the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
  Drawing from three sources, we have the following lists;

Les Origines...         The Knights Templar        Holy Blood, Holy Grail
  a:Paul Naudon           a:Stephen Howarth          a:Baigent, Leigh, Lincoln
---------------         -------------------        ---------------------------
Hugues de Pains         Hugh de Payens             Hugues de Payen
Geoffroi de Saint-Omer  Geoffrey of St-Omer        Bisol de St. Omer
Payen de Montdidier     Payen de Montdidier        Nivard de Montdidier
Archambaud de St-Aignan Archambaud de St-Agnan     Archambaud de Saint-Aignan
Andre de Montbard       Andre de Montbard          Andre de Montbard
Godefroy de Bissot      Geoffrey Bisot
Gondemar                Gondemare                  Gondemar
Roral/Roland            Rossal/Roland              Rossal
Godefroy
                                                   Hugues, Comte de Champagne
  The above lists are justified as such;
  Paul Naudon draws his list from the writtings of Guillaume de Tyre, historian
to the court of Jerusalem in 1173.  It should be noted that this was more than
50 years after the establishment of the Templars, and was probably drawn from
sources supplied by the Templars.  One must make one's own judgement as to the
validity of any sources which the Templars may have made available to Guillaume
de Tyre at this time.  As one of the other four authors notes, "Archbishop
William of Tyre...held a permanent grudge against the Templars...," and this
may serve to explain why Guillaume is the first Crusader historian to make any
mention of the Templars' origins.
  Stephen Howarth does not give a clear indication as to his source.  He also
only lists eight founders, and says about the ninth only that "[t]radition says
there were nine in this original brotherhood, but tradition does not give the
name of the ninth."  In this respect, it is perhaps Howarth's list which can be
given the most credence, as he is willing to admit that he is unable to find
proof to support a ninth name.
  Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln give as their source a
report known as the "Dossiers secrets."  This report is claimed to have been
found at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris.  The list is mostly accurate,
containing seven names which are confirmed by the other two lists.  The
additional name, Hugues, Comte de Champagne, is speculative, and likely false.
  First, lets take aside the eight names which match, and produce the list of
eight confirmed founders, as they will be refered to from this point onward.

Hugues de Payens        Geoffrey de St-Omer     Payen de Montdidier
Archmabaud de St-Agnan  Andre de Montbard       Godefoy Bisol
Gondemar                Roland

  First, we come to the ninth name on Paul Naudon's list; Godefroy.  This is
probably based upon the Rule of the Temple, article 7.  The rule reads;

        "And also present was Brother Hugues de Payens, Master of the
          Knighthood, with some of his brothers whom he had brought with
          him.  They were Brother Roland, Brother Godefroy, and Brother
          Geoffroi Bisot, Brother Payen de Montdidier, Brother Archambaut
          de Saint-Amand."

Article 7 was comprised at the Council of Troyes in 1129, along with many of
the earliest articles of conduct for the Order.  The list of Knights who
acompanied Hugues includes Godefroy de St Omer, Roland, Godefroi Bisot, Payen
de Montdidier, and Archambaud de St.Amand.  Apparently, Geoffrey de St Omer
had been recorded simply as Godefroy (second on the list).
  As for Hugues, Comte de Champagne, he is recorded historically as joining the
Order in 1126, and is considered to be the only the second non-founding member
(not including Count Fulk of Anjou, who had joined as an associate member in
1120.  Remarkably, this is the same Fulk who married Melissande, and thereby
eventually became King of Jerusalem on Sept 14, 1131) along with Robert de
Craon, whose date of joining the Order is in question.  The reason for
the suggestion that Hugues de Champagne was one of the founders is that he had
a long history of activity in the east, starting in 1104.  He returned to
France in 1108, then returned to the east again in 1114, intending to join
the "milice du Christ."  Supposedly, he changed his mind, and returned to
France.  Likely, he did just that, but there is still the possibility that
the Order was esablished by 1114, or in it's early stages, and that Hugues
did have something to do with it.  While there is little evidence to support
this theory, there is nothing to discount it either, as Hugues was in the
east at a time when the Templars would have been organizing.  For now, however,
we will discount this, and leave the ninth founder unknown.
  Of the other eight mentioned as founders, we know which Knights were still
members of the Order in 1129; Hugues de Payens and five others in Troyes with
Andre de Montebard and Gondemar noted in a letter from Badouin II  to St
Bernard before the Council of Troyes in 1129.  If there were only eight of the
original Knights in the Order at this time, along with Robert de Craon and
the Comte de Champagne, who was recently admitted to the Order, this leaves us
with the nine members stated as part of the Order.  Even if there had been a
ninth founder (who was not Hugues de Champagne), perhaps he had died by 1129.
  There are two other possibilities for the unknown ninth founder, however.
  The second Master of the Templars was Robert de Craon.  The date of his
joining the Order is somewhat questionable.  He is not indicated as part of
the Order in 1129, but there is a charter dated 1125 witnessed by "Robert the
Templar."  It has been suggested that Robert was the ninth founder, and that he
is not recorded in 1129 because he is not included in Article 7 or the letter
Bernard.  If none of the documents availible to Guillaume had included Robert's
name, then he would not have been included.
  Second, if there was in fact an organization working out of the abbey on Mt
Sion, then perhaps someone within the abbey had helped found the order.  That
person may have been one Prior Arnaldus.  Several documnets of the period were
found bearing the seal and signature of one or another prior from the abbey on
Mt Sion (known as the Notre Dame de Sion).  There is one from July 19, 1116,
signed by Prior Arnaldus.  There is another from May 2, 1125, where Prior
Arnaldus' name appears with Hugues de Payens.
  How many more connections could actually be found to link the abbey on
Sion III with the Templars?

MOUNT SION; WHY IS IT IMPOTANT?

  Archaeologically speaking, there have been a series of constructs built
atop Mt. Sion near Jerusalem.  However, geograpically speaking, there are
three rises in the area which have been called Mt. Sion over the last 3000
years.
  When King David captured Jerusalem in about 1000 BCE, the south-eastern
ridge was known as Mt. Sion.  This is the site of the City of David, and is
refered to as Sion I.  This hill has been the subject of recent excavations
seeking more information about the City of David.
  When King Solomon built his temple to the Lord on the ridge to the north,
the Temple Mount was refered to as Sion.  It is refered to as Sion II or Mt.
Moriah.
  The Mt. Sion most commonly refered to is Sion III, which is located south-
west of the Temple Mount.  It is on this hill that the Church of the Apostles
sat durring the time of Jesus.  On that same site, an abbey was erected by
order of Godfroi de Bouillon after the conquest of Jerusalem.  Today, the
Dormition(meaning "passing away") Abbey is located there, keeping with the
tradition that it marks the site of the "passing away" of Mary.
  It is Sion III which will be focused upon here.  In addition the the
actual constructs found here, the history of visitors to Sion before the
Crusades will show that someone was interested in Mt. Sion for a very long
time.

  The first construction is from 73 CE.  After the destruction of the city
of Jerusalem in 70 CE, (from Euthychius, 10th century patriarch of Alexandria,
so, again, the information is written long after the event, and thereby
questionable) the Judeo-Christians who fled to Pella "returned to Jerusalem
in the fourth year of Vespian, and built there their church."  Their leader
was Simon Bar-Kleopha, second bishop of Jerualem, and a decendant of the
Davidic family.
  Returning at that time, these Judeo-Christians would have at their
disposal the ashlars from Herod's Temple as well as ruins from other buildings
of the old city from which to build their church.  Certainly, looking at the
remaining walls from the older constructions, it is obvious that blocks of
various sizes were used.  This church, built before the term church had come
into use, would have been called either a Beit or Beth Knesset, which means
"house of assembly."  From the Greek assembly, it became "synagogue."
  This synagogue stood alone atop Sion III commemorating the site of the Last
Supper and the death of Mary.  Over the next three centuries, several other
constructs were added.  In 333 CE, a man known as the Pilgrim of Bordeaux
visited the site, and mentioned entering the "wall of Sion," which might have
been a wall construced by the Judeo-Christians to fend off Pagen and Byzantine
influence and trespass.  In about 382 CE, Theodosius I had an Octagonal church
constructed on Sion III next to the synagogue, a representations of which can
be seen in the 400 CE mosaic of the Last Supper at the Basilica of St.
Pudentiana in Rome.(In the mosaic, the octaginal church and the synagogue
are just to the right of the Christ's head.)
  This octaginal church stood next to the 1st century synagogue until about
415 CE, when it was replaced by the Hagia Sion Basilica, which abutted the
1st century synagogue along it's north wall.  Also in 415, the bones of St.
Stephen were found.  The then Bishop of Jerusalem, John II, had the relics of
St. Stephen transfered to the synagogue on Mt. Sion, where thay remanined until
the empress Eudocia had a new church erected to honor St. Stephen, located
north of the Damacus Gate, in 439 CE.  The bones of St Stephen were moved to
the new church, however some of the bones were taken to Constantinople and
others went to the Mount of Olives.  The sarcophagus remained in the sanctuary
on Mt. Sion.
  At the time, it was believed that the "wall of Sion" was a part of the Palace
of David, and that the City of David had stood on the same hill (the western
hill, Sion III).  Similarly, since the kings of Judah were interred in the
City of David, the tombs of David and Solomon were also on the western hill.
Two more memorial tombs were added in the 10th century to reflect this belief,
and it was these two tombs along with St. Stephen's sarcophagus which the
Crusaders found upon Sion in 1099.
  Upon thier arrival, the Crusaders found the Hagia Sion Basilica in ruins.
On the south part of the ruins, the new abbey was built, known as Notre Dame
de Sion.  This Crusader church was built to include the synagogue within it,
using the synagogue as the south-east corner.  Above the remaining walls of the
synagogue, the Crusaders built a second floor, known as the cenacle.  This
cenacle commemorated the Last Supper and the Pentecost (Acts 2).
  One unconfirmed story relating to Mt. Sion relates the account of Benjamin
of Tudela.  While in Jerusalem, a man named Abraham told of two workers who
had accidentally happened upon a passage and found themselves in a palace of
marble columns, which they believed to be the Tomb of David.  They also
reported that a golden sceptre and a golden crown were on a table, and
riches were littered all around.  The pair were supposedly struck down by a
whirlwind and told to leave by unseen voices, and were found sick in bed,
claiming "We shall never again return there, for God does not want this place
to be seen by any human being."  Most likely, the pair were lying, since the
City of David has been found to be on the east hill (Sion I), and the Tomb
of David would likewise be so.
  After the defeat at Hatin, the Crusaders entrusted the abbey to the Syrian
Christians, who were in turn forced to abandon the complex when it was
destroyed by order of one of the Ayubic sultans of Damascus in 1219 CE.
Between 1335 and 1337 CE, a group of Franciscan fathers bought Mt. Sion from
the Saracens.  They repaired the roof of the cenacle and built a new monestary
south of it.  The Franciscans were never able to occupy the ground floor of
the cenacle, since Moslem holy men had made their abode there.  Eventually,
the Moslems drove the Franscans from the site in the 16th century and had both
the tomb and the centacle declared mosques.

IS THERE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF A LINK BETWEEN THE TEMPLARS AND THE ABBEY?

  There was indeed an abbey constructed on the western hill(Sion III), as
proven by archaeological evidence.  This abbey, the Notre Dame du Sion, was
dedicated to Mary, the mother of Jesus.  It was occupied by the Crusader
from 1100 until 1187, when it was turned over to the Syrian Christians.
  The Templars, irreguardless of their founding date, were established in the
El Aqsa Mosque on the souternmost region of the Temple Mount Complex by order
of Badouin II in 1118, and were using the area beneath the temple as thier
horse stable as early as 1124.

  (It should be noted here that the "Stable of Solomon" was not originally used
   for livestock, but was in fact used to support the southern extension of
   the Temple Mount Complex, and stable is derived from the stabilizing of the
   Complex rather than housing livestock.  Additionally, these vaults were
   built by order of Herod, not Solomon.)

  Besides the aforementioned appearance of Prior Arnaldus' signature with that
of Hugues de Payens, there is additional connection between the Templars and
the Notre Dame du Sion.

  First, there is the prayer offered by the Templars upon the election of the
Grand Master.  The prayer is recorded in Article 222 of the Templar Rule, and
the pertinant section reads as follows;

        "...Make safe your servant. R. My Lord, who puts his trust in you.
         Send to him, Lord, help from the sanctuary. R. And watch over them
            out of Zion.
         Be to him, Lord, a tower of strength..."

The second line in the above passage is most important.  The first part, "help
from the sanctuary," could be a reference to either a heavenly sanctuary or an
earthly sanctary.  Notre Dame du Sion would certanly qualify as one possible
sanctuary.  The second part, "them out of Zion," also has two possible
interpretations; either watching over those who are outside of Zion (the name
transfered upon Jerusalem from the Jesubite citadel conqured by King David),
or being watched over from [out of] Sion.
  Hence, the two interpretations are;
        1. Send help to this new leader from Heaven, and watch over the
           others who are outside of Jerusalem.
        2. Send help to this new leader from [pos: Notre Dame de Sion] and
           watch over him from Sion.
  Under the name Zion, the city of Jerusalem had been referred to as Sion
before; once in Psalms 136, again in Isaiah 60.  Psalms 137 recounts the loss
of Jerusalem being mourned from exile in Babylonia durring the sixth century
BCE. In Isaiah, the second Isaiah calls for a return to Jerusalem/Sion. The
Crusaders had captured the city from the Infidels, thus symbolically answering
Isaiah's call, but the King of Persia had opened the city of Jerusalem to the
Isrealites after conquering the Babylonians in 538 BCE.  Since these two
Biblical references have no bearing on the Crusader situation, it seems
unlikely that the Crusaders drew inspirations from these passages, yet the
Templars refer to "Sion" in their inagural prayer.
  And the Templars definatly comitted themselves to the sanctity of the
mother of Jesus.  In additon to their role as peacekeepers and financers,
there was one other project which the Templars embarked upon on several
occasions.  As Edith Simon points out;

        "They might shun the female principle, that peril to salvation,
        incarnated in the daughters of Eve, but as the worldly knight had
        each his lady, so, too, must they have theirs.  The churches they
        had been empowered to build for their own use were for the most
        part dedicated to...Mary, the Queen of Heaven, Mercy personified."

The Templars definatly had a very strong connection with the Notre Dame du
Sion, else why dedicate their churches to Mary, rather then Jesus the Christ,
of whom they were sworn knights?

  If the Templars were calling upon God to watch over those (either other
Templars or all Christians) outside of Jerusalem, then why choose Sion?  There
were several other ways of calling for this blessing, including using the
name Jerusalem, or perhaps the phrase Outremer, which indicated the lands
"Across-the-Sea," which would have included the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

  It is almost assured that the Templars had a strong connection to the Notre
Dame de Sion.  Also, if the 'Dossiers secrets' are reliable, Sion executed a
considerable influence with the Kings of Jerusalem.  Badouin II had felt
"obliged" to Sion for his throne.  Fulk of Anjou, who was affiliated with the
Templars, and thus with Sion, married into the throne with his marriage to
Melissande.  Even after his departure from the Templars and until his death
in 1143, Fulk still paid annual dues to the Templars of 30 pounds of silver,
despite being King of the land.  The extent of the Templars influence went far
beyond the Holy Land, and Hugues de Champagne, who was Hugues de Payens leige,
joined the Temple, effectively pledging loyalty to his own vassal.
  Both Fulk of Anjou and Hugues de Champagne had a long history with the Holy
Land.  Fulk's ancestor, also named Fulk, had made the pilgrimage to the city
of Jerusalem in 1009, at which time he supposedly bit off a chunk of rock while
kneelin to kiss the tomb of Jesus, which he brought back to Europe and
enshrined within the new Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
  Hugues had made two journeys to the Holy Land before officially joining the
Templars in 1129; the first in 1104, which lasted until 1108, and the second
in 1114, when he set out to join the "milice du Christ."
  Of course, "la milice du Christ" was the name by which the Templars were
originally known.  Saint Bernard alludes to the Templars by this name, and a
letter from the bishop of Chartres to Hugues contains the following;

      "We have heard that...before leaving Jerusalem you made a vow to join
       'la milice du Christ,' that you wish to enroll in evangelical soldiery."

Two things can be infered from the letter;
        1. The Templars were active by 1114, else Hugues would not have had
            the opportunity to join the Order.
        2. Hugues was not an original member, else he would not need to join
            the Order, being a member already.

  From the above, we know several things.  There was an abbey upon Sion III,
called the Notre Dame de Sion, inhabited by an order from 1100 to the fall of
Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187.  The Order of the Temple existed as early as
1114, perhaps even earlier.  Both the Templars and the order at Sion were
influential within the ruling order of Jerusalem.  Finally, both orders were
closely related, with Sion watching over the Templars and the Templars setting
into motion events which were desired by both orders.
  There arises another question, however.  How long had plans been in the works
to establish the abbey on Sion and the Templars?  And who was responsible for
these actions?

------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer.


All files are ZIP archives for fast download.

 E-mail [e-mail])