# Transformation of the degrees over time



## hanzosbm (Jul 7, 2015)

We all know that at one time there were only 2 degrees (while have suggested that perhaps the Master was given some further knowledge upon installation that could have constituted a third degree but was given out so sparingly as to avoid detection over the  years). 
At some point, it grew to 3 degrees.  Some might argue that it even grew to 4 if one comes from a line that finds the Order of the Royal Arch to be a necessary part of the original knowledge.

The legend from the 3rd degree doesn't appear in the earliest descriptions of the degrees, but doesn't necessarily mean that some version of it wasn't around.  The information we have from the earliest sources talks about the degrees but gives them more as the catechism and less as the actual degree, so our picture is incomplete.

At the most extreme, we have a stretching from 2 to 4 degrees.  I'm curious to get some opinions (ideally with some basis) around how this was done.  Were the degrees originally so lengthy that they were simply split up?  Were entire degrees simply made up?  If so, which ones?  We could then get into a discussion around when, why, and what formed these new lessons, but my primary question has to do with what the lessons originally looked like.


----------



## JJones (Jul 7, 2015)

It's been a long time since I've researched this so I can't be as informative as I would have been several years ago.

If you're unfamiliar with the Preston Webb  ritual, of which some variation is usually practiced in North America, then that may be a good place to start.  Here's a link to a good paper on the topic.

I'm also going to toss this link in here as well.  The Baltimore Convention may not have affected the degree system but it did make an impact on the way most of us practice Freemasonry in the states.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 7, 2015)

Thank you very much.  I look forward to reading both of these.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 7, 2015)

Having read through them, I found some very interesting insights.  

Brother Blaisdell says "In 1745 the three-degree system was in place.  Splitting the first degree into two degrees, and taking the then second degree and making it the third degree accomplished this."
I would love to get some more information on this.

He goes on to say "This was not a very effective ritual".  Why not?  Was the splitting of a degree done in such a way as to make the two feel incomplete by themselves or was there something else to it?

"...so in order to make the work more "acceptable" revisions were begun in 1769 by Wellins Calcutt and William Hutchinson.  In 1772 William Preston joined them.  In two years, Preston had completed his work, and rewrote the ritual of the three degrees.  He was an excellent ritualist, and his original work is some of the most beautiful ever created.  There was one small problem ... it was long!  In fact, it is said the 12-parts of his lecture of the Master Mason degree actually took a half-day to recite."
Understandably, for most men, that is too much to endure sitting through let alone memorizing.  But it begs the question, if at one time the lectures took half a day, what was lost when they were shortened?

One other curious thing I found in this paper was the following: "While officially, the Grand Lodge of Kentucky uses a Webb-form ritual..."  
I'll need to do some reading up on this.  The Kentucky Monitor was written by Henry Pirtle.  I'm curious to see the similarities of what he wrote and the Webb ritual.

This is an excellent introduction to the topic


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Jul 7, 2015)

James, could you please point us toward some source information so we could attempt to find answers to these questions?


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 7, 2015)

Well...the origins of the legend actually go back further than that, and they start to have some VERY interesting parallels.  

In the Cooke Manuscript from 1450, we see the fear that a collection of wisdom would be lost.  In this story, we have the children of Lamech who are the holders of wisdom.  The oldest was Jabal, and we are told he was the first man to know about geometry and masonry.  The next in line is his brother, Jubal, who was the founder of music and song.  Next in line, we have half brother Tubal Cain, who worked in metals.  And finally, Tubal Cain's sister, Naamah, who held the knowledge of weaving.  Knowing that God would destroy the earth at a later date by either fire or water, they constructed 2 pillars, one made of marble, one made of latres so that if one was destroyed by fire, the other would survive and vice versa.  
After the flood, the two pillars are both found (which doesn't make a lot of sense if one was expected to be destroyed by water) by Hermes and Pythagoras.

Fast forward to 1726 and the Graham Manuscript and we get the story of Noah.  Why the change?  Maybe it was just confusion.  After all, Lamech is also the name of Noah's father.  Also in the Graham Manuscript we are introduced to the third person at the building of the temple.  There is King Solomon, Hiram of Tyre, and Bazalliell who begins to show a lot of similarities to the story of HA.

There are many more tie ins and there is definitely a way of tying it all back to HA if one is willing to look at some of the Apocryphal books and Islamic texts.  I did a significant amount of research awhile back and one can really start to see an evolution of the story.  For obvious reasons, I don't want to connect the dots here, but suffice to say that it quickly becomes apparent that there is a long history of mortals who have handed down divine knowledge throughout the biblical stories.  Some of the names might have gotten changed/confused/transposed/altered, but the history is there.


----------



## JJones (Jul 7, 2015)

The ritual initially included Hermes?  That's interesting.  I'm curious if Enoch is mentioned at any point as well?


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 7, 2015)

In the ritual, no.  However, when following the bouncing ball, he figures into the stories quite prominently.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 7, 2015)

As I mentioned, I don't want to connect the dots publically, and no one source really tells the whole story, but I can provide the documents I've used that all intertwine and which together start to tell a very interesting story.
Keep in mind, I'm not claiming that any of these documents are telling historical truth, but they show a pool of stories that, taken together, begin to make a lot more sense than any one of them on their own. 
In no particular order, they are:

Matthew Cooke Manuscript
Graham Manuscript
Book of Enoch
Book of Jubilees
Sefer Raziel
Zohar
Halliwell Manuscript/Regius Poem
The Golden Legend
Ta'rikh al-Hakama by Ibn al-Qifti
Flavius Josephus of the Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 2.

I'm still in the process of putting it all together in a coherent way, but those are the sources I'm currently using.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Jul 8, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> it quickly becomes apparent that there is a long history of mortals who have handed down divine knowledge


Brother, I found your entire post interesting.  I wish I had the knowledge (time, I've got) to find the sources and read about this topic.  However my question, the big question really, is "What is divine knowledge?".  Freemasonry respects all men who pursue divine knowledge, this is why we respect men of all religions.  But sometimes I wonder, what is the elusive knowledge that we all pursue?  Could it be that each of us has found some of it and we are trying to discover the rest?  Perhaps even that we must become strong in our character so that when knowledge is acquired it can be understood correctly and applied in a beautiful manner.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 8, 2015)

Edited due to unrelated content


----------



## LAMason (Jul 8, 2015)

The Evolution of the Hiramic Legend in England and France
Joannes A.M. Snoek,
 The Heredom Volume 11 2003


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 8, 2015)

Edited due to unrelated content


----------



## coachn (Jul 8, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> ...Brother Blaisdell says "In 1745 the three-degree system was in place.  Splitting the first degree into two degrees, and taking the then second degree and making it the third degree accomplished this."
> I would love to get some more information on this.



I suggest you watch the following video and pay close attention to what is shared between times 10:00 and 23:00 if you want to know about the split and other things.

http://www.molor.org/trumanlectureseries#spring2012


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 9, 2015)

Brother Nagy,

That presentation was extremely interesting.  What I wouldn't give to have had the opportunity to speak with Brother de Hoyos after that presentation when it was only Masons.  The fact that so many were against the change from the Antediluvian legend to the Hiramic legend is telling.  I doubt there is any way to find out for sure, but I'd be interested to know if the Hiramic legend was simply an invention as was proposed or whether it came from some other existing tradition.  Brother de Hoyos indicates that there were some 'higher' degrees around before the third degree was created.  So we know that there was additional traditions that were not used in the mainstream at that time.  Is it possible that one of these older tradition was combined with the noachite legend?  I doubt we'll ever know.


----------



## coachn (Jul 9, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> Brother Nagy,
> 
> That presentation was extremely interesting.



I agree, as to the time between 10 and 23 minutes.  I'm glad that I could refer you to it and that you enjoyed viewing it.



hanzosbm said:


> ... The fact that so many were against the change from the Antediluvian legend to the Hiramic legend is telling.  I doubt there is any way to find out for sure, but I'd be interested to know if the Hiramic legend was simply an invention as was proposed or whether it came from some other existing tradition.  Brother de Hoyos indicates that there were some 'higher' degrees around before the third degree was created.  So we know that there was additional traditions that were not used in the mainstream at that time.  Is it possible that one of these older tradition was combined with the noachite legend?  I doubt we'll ever know.



Brother, they are ALL fabricated *morality plays*.  Does it truly matter when they were made up and added? or who was against having any one specific one replace or augment another?

_The point of all these plays was not ever the plays themselves or the characters and symbols they used._  It was the morality that each was making effort to convey to those who experienced them.

Freemasonic Society has all but forgot the reasons for putting these plays on and as a whole it has focused almost exclusively upon preserving them without knowing why.

Initially, the plays were extremely simple: an obligation with a little bit of pomp and pageantry. Now, they are full blown productions that take hours.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 9, 2015)

I honestly feel that the degrees should be done like u just mentioned and then maybe once a qtr the full degree is put on.  As i have learned and picked up more as a cast member and sideliner then as a candidate.  Kinda how the shrine obligates you and makes you a member and then later down the road the degree is actually conferred


----------



## coachn (Jul 9, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> ...So why was it important to preserve the story of JtJ?


You assume that it is the story that is important and not simply the preservation of the fabricated act.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 9, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> The Hiram legend seems to be combination of the legend of Horus (son of the Widow Isis) and James the Just (brother of Jesus)
> 
> By some accounts James the Just was thrown down from the walls of the temple and killed with a blow to the forehead with a fullers club whereupon all work on the temple ceased.
> 
> So why was it important to preserve the story of JtJ?


I'm familiar with Eusebius' recitation of Hegesippus' version of the martyrdom, but could you provide a citation to work on the temple ceasing?


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 9, 2015)

coachn said:


> I agree, as to the time between 10 and 23 minutes.  I'm glad that I could refer you to it and that you enjoyed viewing it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but I don't agree.  We know that the story used today is not as it was originally.  We also must admit that we don't know what the original story was.  If we don't know what the story was, how can we say that it is a fabricated morality play?  Even assuming that it is (and I certainly agree that is the most likely case) how can we say what system of morality was being taught?
Many people believe that religion is a set of fabricated stories with the intention of teaching morality.  But the moral lessons taught by different religions are not universal.  Further more, even if one accepts that as being the truth, there is a lot more than just morality being taught in holy books.  And to argue that understanding where the stories came from and what they were originally is irrelevant would be similar to saying that it would be okay to go ahead and rewrite the bible with completely different stories provided the moral lessons remained the same.  
The lessons taught in Freemasonry are encoded in the symbols and allegories.  We study them in order to decode them.  But as the code is changed, pieces of it are lost.  Maybe the information taught is still completely intact, maybe it's not.  We have no way to know that without knowing what it originally looked like.


----------



## coachn (Jul 9, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't agree.



Awesome!  



hanzosbm said:


> We know that the story used today is not as it was originally.  We also must admit that we don't know what the original story was.  If we don't know what the story was, how can we say that it is a fabricated morality play?



Evidence...



hanzosbm said:


> Even assuming that it is (and I certainly agree that is the most likely case) how can we say what system of morality was being taught?



We cannot.  We can only say that morality was being conveyed through these morality plays.



hanzosbm said:


> Many people believe that religion is a set of fabricated stories with the intention of teaching morality.  But the moral lessons taught by different religions are not universal.



All the lessons may not be the same, but there are underlying overlaps in the moralities being conveyed.



hanzosbm said:


> Further more, even if one accepts that as being the truth, there is a lot more than just morality being taught in holy books.



Yes, but we were discussing Freemasonry, not religions, right?



hanzosbm said:


> And to argue that understanding where the stories came from and what they were originally is irrelevant _*would be similar to saying that it would be okay to go ahead and rewrite the bible with completely different stories provided the moral lessons remained the same*_.



I love the nature of your hyperbole.  Although it is interesting and entertaining, it has nothing to do with what I posted.  You've taken this in your own direction and for God know what reason. I know that you see relevance in your statement.  I do not see it as being an equitable statement.



hanzosbm said:


> The lessons taught in Freemasonry are encoded in the symbols and allegories.  We study them in order to decode them.  But as the code is changed, pieces of it are lost.  Maybe the information taught is still completely intact, maybe it's not.  We have no way to know that without knowing what it originally looked like.



Yup, but so what?  We have what we have today and it is a result of a lot of script re-writes over the years, all reflecting the times and interests of those in past eras. 

It is perhaps why we have many leaving the Craft after experiencing them.  It is not pertinent to them so they leave.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 9, 2015)

Well, it seems you are quite content with the current lessons taught and have no desire to look any deeper or wider.  That is your choice.


----------



## coachn (Jul 9, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> Well, it seems you are quite content with the current lessons taught and have no desire to look any deeper or wider.  That is your choice.


Well, that's an unusual assumption and conclusion. 

BTW - I've concluded what I have concluded about Freemasonry.  However, I do not restrict myself to Freemasonry for Lessons and dig deep and wide elsewhere.  Freemasonic digging helped perfect/hone my skills, but Freemasonic lessons do not limit where I seek.  I believe that was its intent all along.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Jul 9, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> So why was it important to preserve the story of JtJ?


I give up.  Why?


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 10, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> James the Just was the leader of the Jerusalem church - although largely ignored in the New Testament.
> ....


Largely ignored? Cf. http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=01-01-005-f

What is your reference for indicating the work on the temple stopped in the one version of his martyrdom?


----------



## coachn (Jul 10, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> James the Just was the leader of the Jerusalem church - although largely ignored in the New Testament.



Yet there is enough within it to know that Paul's fabrication won out.



JamestheJust said:


> Did another form of Christianity (led by the brother of Jesus) actually continue ...



Christianity, as it has survived to this day en mass, was a strategic fabrication of Paul.  Paul was a Hellenist converted to Judaism (but still strongly Gentile) who took his Hellenistic beliefs and made every effort to merge his well-rooted Hellenistic beliefs with what he knew about Judaism to create a religion that was a blend of the two.  

Jesus was Jewish and from all available literature a devout Essene. What Jesus devoutly practiced as a faith was not anything like what Paul created and promoted.  This was the major conflict that occurred between James and Paul.  James was practicing what Jesus espoused.  Paul was not.



JamestheJust said:


> ...- perhaps led by a bloodline - for example through the Templars or even through Freemasonry?



The Templer-Freemasonic connection is a typical example of fabrication.  Romantic as its draw is, it's pure fantasy and excellent script writing.  It has its fans.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 10, 2015)

Gentlemen,  I'll admit to often times being ignorant of many biblical (both canonical and otherwise) sources, so the information about James the Just was new to me.  I haven't done any exhaustive research into it, but I saw some interesting things that I thought I'd bring up.  Call it food for thought, or maybe something that sparks an idea in someone else, either way, I figured I'd put it out there.

Brother Cook, like you, I was unable to find any references to the work stopping on the Temple after James' death.  That being said, there some other interesting parallels, although admittedly, some require a bit of a stretch.
James was the brother of Jesus, but likely only his half brother.  Joseph was said to have children from his first wife (her name varies based on accounts) when he is betrothed to Mary.  So, if we assume that James is the son of Joseph, it is natural to say that he was the son of a widower.  Different, yes, but I have been unable to find out enough about the languages spoken at the time (Greek, Latin, Aramaic) to determine if the term widow had a female connotation or not. 
Furthermore, as a son of Joseph, he likely would've gone into his father's line of work as a carpenter.  Throughout the various legends we've seen over time, we know that the protagonist is a skilled worker of materials, but those materials vary over time.  Noah worked in wood, Hiram of Tyre worked in metals, HAB in stone.  But, they were all craftsmen.
The parallels of the protagonist's heritage are shaky.  He is said to be descended from a mother from the tribe of Naphtali and a father from Tyre.  Well, we know Joseph wasn't from Tyre, but if we are making the leap that widower got changed to widow, maybe mother and father got mixed up also?  So what if his mother was from Tyre and his father was of the tribe of Naphtali?  We know very little about James' mother.  We have several names for her.  St. Jerome calls her Escha and says she is the daughter of Aggi who is the brother of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist.  (As an interesting note, in the Quran, Zacharias is the priest who watches over Mary.  Interesting that he would choose the husband of his niece)  Luke says that Zacharias is 'of the course of Abia' but from what I can tell, he's referring to the line of priests and not a bloodline, so the trail goes a bit cold.  Long story short, we have nothing tying either of James' parents to Tyre.  What about the Naphtali?  Not really, although Nazareth in within the geographical area that was the tribe of Naphtali many generations earlier, although that's still a bit shaky.
So, how does James die?  He is first thrown from the top of the Temple, which injures but doesn't kill him.  He is then stoned, which injures, but doesn't kill him.  Then he is hit in the head with a club which finally does kill him.  All of this is done because he won't say what is asked for him (in this case, to renounce Jesus).  So, we see a man who stays faithful, is attacked 3 times, with the third time being a blow to the head which kills him.
The people then "buried him on the spot...close by the temple". 
In the Gospel of Thomas, prior to Jesus' death he is asked who is to be the leader of the disciples after he is gone.  Jesus replies "No matter where you come from it is to James the Just that you shall go".  If we assume that James then was the leader, it could be said that he was carrying the message started by Jesus.  So, upon his death, the 'word' is lost forever.  Those remaining are then forced to go to the next best thing they have.
So we've got a man, who is the son of the widower, whose father is from the region of the tribe of Naphtali, present at the building of the temple of Jerusalem who is himself a builder who carries knowledge that brings him closer to God who is asked to do something he doesn't feel is right.  He refuses (although still offering his knowledge to those who are ready to receive it).  In turn he is attacked 3 times, the third time being a fatal blow to the head.  He is buried near the temple.  His knowledge is lost so his followers must find a replacement for his knowledge.

Again, all of this is a bit of a stretch, but I think there are some parallels worth considering.


----------



## coachn (Jul 10, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> Gentlemen,  ...
> So we've got a man, who is the son of the widower, whose father is from the region of the tribe of Naphtali, present at the building of the temple of Jerusalem who is himself a builder who carries knowledge that brings him closer to God who is asked to do something he doesn't feel is right.  He refuses (although still offering his knowledge to those who are ready to receive it).  In turn he is attacked 3 times, the third time being a fatal blow to the head.  He is buried near the temple.  His knowledge is lost so his followers must find a replacement for his knowledge.
> 
> Again, all of this is a bit of a stretch, but I think there are some parallels worth considering.


AWESOMENESS!


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 10, 2015)

Getting back to our earlier discussion about 2 degrees being split into 3, something occurred to me. 

The lectures, working tools, obligation, etc could easily be split up.  That makes sense.  But there are 3 different steps, due guards, signs, grips, words, and methods of wearing the apron for each of the 3 degrees.  These are supposedly to distinguish the level of the brother so that he can prove he is of that degree.  If there were only 2 degrees, then one of each of these had to be completely fabricated at the time the third degree was created.  This definitely casts a fly into the ointment of any kind of research being done about the deeper meaning of these things as we know one of them was artificially inserted with the others. 
Yes, they were all fabricated at some point, but the original two, at least theoretically, went together in some fashion.  I wish we could determine which was the third so that we could study the lessons in these degrees as they were originally designed.


----------



## coachn (Jul 10, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> Getting back to our earlier discussion about 2 degrees being split into 3, something occurred to me.
> 
> The lectures, working tools, obligation, etc could easily be split up.  That makes sense.  But there are 3 different steps, due guards, signs, grips, words, and methods of wearing the apron for each of the 3 degrees.  These are supposedly to distinguish the level of the brother so that he can prove he is of that degree.  If there were only 2 degrees, then one of each of these had to be completely fabricated at the time the third degree was created.  This definitely casts a fly into the ointment of any kind of research being done about the deeper meaning of these things as we know one of them was artificially inserted with the others.



Yup... AND, it typically deflates the balloons and sails we collectively tend to inflate with enthusiasm once we find out it was all fabricated.... that is, until each of us begin to understand the purpose for these elaborate fabrications.  Once one does, one becomes deeply grateful for all the creative minds and spirits who labored to do so. 



hanzosbm said:


> Yes, they were all fabricated at some point, but the original two, at least theoretically, went together in some fashion.  I wish we could determine which was the third so that we could study the lessons in these degrees as they were originally designed.


But the primary two were fabricated too!  The key is compare the original Stonecraft documents and what came out in the 1700 write-ups.  When you do, you may begin to see how the first and second Degree scripts were fabricated to create basis of the plays and role playing we have today.

But to do all this, you must get past the illusion that there is any connection between Stonecraft and theatrical Freemasonry, other than the materials, premises, writings, and lore Freemasonry borrowed to write its own plays.


----------



## LAMason (Jul 10, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> James was the brother of Jesus, but likely only his half brother. Joseph was said to have children from his first wife (her name varies based on accounts) when he is betrothed to Mary.



So:

Do you accept as fact that Joseph was married prior to Mary and had children by this wife?
Which source are you using for this?


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 10, 2015)

LAMason said:


> So:
> 
> Do you accept as fact that Joseph was married prior to Mary and had children by this wife?
> Which source are you using for this?


I accept it as as much fact as I do any other genealogical references in the New Testament.
Regarding sources, the primary one would be the Gospel of James.


----------



## LAMason (Jul 11, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> I accept it as as much fact as I do any other genealogical references in the New Testament.
> Regarding sources, the primary one would be the Gospel of James.



The Gospel of James *(*Infancy Gospel of James) is an apocryphal Gospel and is not one of the books of the New Testament.  I do not know of any place in the New Testament that it states that Joseph was widowed and had children before he was married to Mary.  That is a tradition/legend held by the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.


----------



## dfreybur (Jul 11, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> But there are 3 different steps, due guards, signs, grips, words, and methods of wearing the apron for each of the 3 degrees.  These are supposedly to distinguish the level of the brother so that he can prove he is of that degree.



I have learned the ritual in 2 jurisdictions and I am well into learning the ritual in my 3rd jurisdiction.  Each wears the FC apron differently.  I was surprised at the difference in my 2nd jurisdiction.  By the time I arrived in my 3rd jurisdiction I just shrugged because I now consider it normal for each jurisdiction to be different in that aspect.

The gestures, when done very carefully according to the certified instructors, are also subtly different.  Slight differences in the position of the feet or the alignment of the arms.  They all look alike when done quickly.  Just a tiny bit of sloppiness and they overlap, but I can demonstrate them in order and show the differences if I take my time and do them slowly.  In one jurisdiction one of the arms drops in a different order - That detail I find hard to execute for some reason.


----------



## LAMason (Jul 11, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> how can we say what system of morality was being taught?



I am certainly not an expert on the various systems of morality, but based on my limited knowledge, I do not know any that would conflict with the moral lessons taught in Freemasonry.  However, if you are looking for a specific system of morality if we look to the Masonic manuscripts and the individuals who are generally accepted as the primary authors of early English ritual(James Anderson, John Theophilus Desaguliers, and George Payne), in my opinion it is clear that the major influence would have been Judeo-Christian.



hanzosbm said:


> We also must admit that we don't know what the original story was.



That is true nor do we know there was an “original story”.  There are many theories as to the origin of the legend/myth.

You may have already looked at these:

 The History of Freemasonry by Albert Gallatin Mackey, MD Chapters 32-36 

 The Revelations of a Square by George Oliver, DD


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 11, 2015)

LAMason said:


> The Gospel of James *(*Infancy Gospel of James) is an apocryphal Gospel and is not one of the books of the New Testament.  I do not know of any place in the New Testament that it states that Joseph was widowed and had children before he was married to Mary.  That is a tradition/legend held by the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.


Thats true. Nor does Joseph ever speak a single word in the Bible, but that doesn't mean he was mute. The Catholic Encyclopedia references the Gospel of James and says that it's ascertain that Joseph had children from a previous marriage is the best answer to why Jesus' brothers and sisters are mentioned repeatedly in the Bible. We could spends months debating the reasons for why the council of Nicea choose the books they did, but I for one do not trust the motivations of early church leaders enough to limit my readings to only what they allow.


----------



## LAMason (Jul 11, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> As I recall, the 3rd degree appears in 1725 based on Noah and his sons. In 1727 the 3rd degree is based on Hiram.
> 
> Why the change in legend?



In my opinion (I have no sources to support this), I would say the ritualists involved in writing/rewriting the rituals did it to provide consistency throughout the rituals concerning the “Solomon’s Temple” theme.


----------



## coachn (Jul 11, 2015)

LAMason said:


> In my opinion (I have no sources to support this), I would say the ritualists involved in writing/rewriting the rituals did it to provide consistency throughout the rituals concerning the “Solomon’s Temple” theme.


Although on the surface I agree it would appear to be just that, I believe when you get past the religious characters used within the blue lodge scripts, you'll likely find that the philosophy and morality that is underlying would be that of Ancient Greece.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 11, 2015)

LAMason said:


> In my opinion (I have no sources to support this), I would say the ritualists involved in writing/rewriting the rituals did it to provide consistency throughout the rituals concerning the “Solomon’s Temple” theme.


Interesting idea. 
I went back and reread the Cooke Manuscript to see what it said about King Solomon's Temple. It didn't say a ton, but it did say one thing that had a very interesting detail. It says:
"And at the making of the Temple in Solomon's time as it is said in the Bible...that Solomon had 4 score thousand masons at his work. *And the king's son of Tyre was his Master Mason."*
So here we have the first mention of a Master Mason as the third part of those responsible for the building of the Temple. We have see artificer of metal before, but not Mason. And, very interestingly, he is King Hiram's son. So not the son of a widow as the Bible and later Masonic legends say 
I'd say your theory about wanting to combine the two legends is quite likely.
I think we're starting to see a picture emerging of a number of different elements from a number of different sources being put together.
In the Cooke Manuscript (which probably isn't the original story either, but it's the first one we have) we see the third man at the Temple being the father of Masons. From the Bible we know this man's name to be Hiram and we're told he's a widow's son from the tribe of Naphtali. Also in the Cooke Manuscript we see the story of three attempts to raise a dead man to access lost knowledge with the attempts failing in similar fashions and the same result of eventual "success" and a replacement word.
At this point, we're missing the 3 ruffians and that portion of the story. Did this part come from James the Just or was it just made up or something else? Hard to say. In storytelling the rule of 3 is common, so 3 attempts with eventual success could easily be independent. ...or not.


----------



## coachn (Jul 11, 2015)

Many of the old manuscripts were plagued by historical inaccuracies and fabrications.  It's a shame that so many eager Brothers want to believe that these old manuscripts represent some secret and accurate histories that were dismissed by the mainstream.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 11, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> I have learned the ritual in 2 jurisdictions and I am well into learning the ritual in my 3rd jurisdiction.  Each wears the FC apron differently.  I was surprised at the difference in my 2nd jurisdiction.  By the time I arrived in my 3rd jurisdiction I just shrugged because I now consider it normal for each jurisdiction to be different in that aspect.
> 
> The gestures, when done very carefully according to the certified instructors, are also subtly different.  Slight differences in the position of the feet or the alignment of the arms.  They all look alike when done quickly.  Just a tiny bit of sloppiness and they overlap, but I can demonstrate them in order and show the differences if I take my time and do them slowly.  In one jurisdiction one of the arms drops in a different order - That detail I find hard to execute for some reason.


I would love to learn/see more about these differences. It's a shame we're not geographically closer. 
I just started visiting a CA lodge and haven't seen much difference, but then again, everything is in the EA degree. You mentioned the FC apron, the other differences you've observed, were they also in the FC degree?
I'm hesitant to jump to the conclusion that because it has the most differences, it was the one that was added simply because the standardization took place AFTER the addition of the degree, so, theoretically we shouldn't see universal variation. Unless of course confusion occurred due to organizations outside the mainstream confused things after the standardization. I know some states used the Scottish and French rituals for a time. This could've introduced some confusion. Although, one would think that if the idea to create a third degree came from a single source, the aspects of that degree would've likewise come from a single, universal source.
We also shouldn't forget that a lot of brothers see the FC degree as 'something to get through'. That, combined with the fact that meetings are conducted in either EA or MM means that FC isn't used all that much. It would be easy for it's lessons to become confused over the generations.


----------



## LAMason (Jul 11, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> Thats true. Nor does Joseph ever speak a single word in the Bible, but that doesn't mean he was mute. The Catholic Encyclopedia references the Gospel of James and says that it's ascertain that Joseph had children from a previous marriage is the best answer to why Jesus' brothers and sisters are mentioned repeatedly in the Bible. We could spends months debating the reasons for why the council of Nicea choose the books they did, but I for one do not trust the motivations of early church leaders enough to limit my readings to only what they allow.



First, I want to state that I am not trying to be argumentative.  I think you would agree with me that the various traditions concerning Joseph and Mary are because of the agendas of various religious sects.

1.  One tradition follows what you have presented concerning Joseph having been married previously and having children from that marriage.  In that tradition, Joseph was an old man (90 years-40+49+1) when he was espoused to Mary (12 years old).  This version is used to support the tradition that Joseph never had sexual relations with Mary and that she was a “perpetual virgin”.

If we look at this in context of James being his son by a previous marriage (in this case James would be a stepbrother of Jesus because of the virgin birth), even if we assume that James was his youngest (some accounts say he was the oldest) and that Joseph was 70 years old when James was born, James would have been at least 82 years old at the time of his death in 62 AD.  Not outside the realm of possibility.

However, the information that I found in the Catholic Encyclopedia, states this tradition is considered unreliable.

“It is probably at Nazareth that Joseph betrothed and married her who was to become the Mother of God. When the marriage took place, whether before or after the Incarnation, is no easy matter to settle, and on this point the masters of exegesis have at all times been at variance. Most modern commentators, following the footsteps of St. Thomas, understand that, at the epoch of the Annunciation, the Blessed Virgin was only affianced to Joseph; as St. Thomas notices, this interpretation suits better all the evangelical data.

It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. These dreams, as St. Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration (see, for instance, Raphael's "Espousals of the Virgin"), are void of authority; they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity; in them some ecclesiastical writers sought the answer to the well-known difficulty arising from the mention in the Gospel of "the Lord's brothers"; from them also popular credulity has, contrary to all probability, as well as to the tradition witnessed by old works of art, retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God.”

 Catholic Encyclopedia > J > St. Joseph

2.  Another tradition holds that Joseph was not previously married, but never had sexual relations with Mary, and was also a perpetual virgin.  In this tradition the term brother as applied to James meant cousin.

3.  A third tradition holds that James was a half-brother of Jesus (again because of the virgin birth), being the son of Mary and Joseph.

4.  And finally, if you do not accept the virgin birth, he would have been the full brother of Jesus.


----------



## dfreybur (Jul 11, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> I just started visiting a CA lodge and haven't seen much difference, but then again, everything is in the EA degree. You mentioned the FC apron, the other differences you've observed, were they also in the FC degree?



In California when you step you are body forward and your feet end up diagonally splayed to balance forward.  In Illinois when you step you are body forward, one foot pointing straight forward, the other foot at an angle unbalanced.  In California when you time the gestures with a count there is only one count where both arms are moving together, moving apart by separate counts.  In Illinois when you time the gestures with a count both arms move up on the same count and both arms move down on the same count.  In California the hands move in arcs.  In Illinois the arms move in straight lines with joints moving to right angles.  The difference is quite subtle unless you are instructed in the exact movements.  The difference follows the same pattern in the gestures of all three degrees.  Even slightly sloppy, and most people do the gestures sloppy unless they are going very slow and together with an instructor, and the differences effectively disappear.

In Texas in the FC one of the arms moves at a different time.  That's not a subtle difference - It is quite obvious who took their degrees inside or outside of Texas.  Who is the visitor with the arm already down.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 11, 2015)

coachn said:


> Many of the old manuscripts were plagued by historical inaccuracies and fabrications.  It's a shame that so many eager Brothers want to believe that these old manuscripts represent some secret and accurate histories that were dismissed by the mainstream.


I think you may be jumping to some conclusions about why some of us are researching these things. Over the course of this discussion I have done a great deal of research on these legends. That doesn't mean that I view them as fact. Our entire craft is about finding meaning in the symbols and stories it teaches. If there are connections to be found or parts of the stories that were lost that might offer more light, I would like to find them. Not because I view it as historical fact, but because it might offer more knowledge of the sort that Masonry offers.


----------



## coachn (Jul 11, 2015)

Then we are on the same page.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 11, 2015)

LAMason said:


> First, I want to state that I am not trying to be argumentative.  I think you would agree with me that the various traditions concerning Joseph and Mary are because of the agendas of various religious sects...



I'm glad to hear it, and I appreciate your summation of the views and the points.  Especially regarding Joseph's age.  As a bit of a side note, is anybody else getting frustrated by sparse use of citation in a lot of writings out there?  And LAMason (and others on here), I'm not talking about you.  I, admittedly, first referenced the Catholic Encyclopedia, and it cites the Gospel of James as its primary source.  Yet, when I actually go to read the Gospel of James, it's missing some of the points made leading me to have to search for where some of these points come from.  As is the gospel of pseudo-Matthew, as is the gospel of the nativity of the virgin Mary, as is the Story of Joseph the Carpenter.  The last source cited by the Catholic Encyclopedia is the Life of the Virgin and Death of Joseph; a text I can't seem to find anywhere.  

I did find this article http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/30/marriage-of-mary-to-joseph-the-carpenter/ which goes into great depth about these issues and has a lot of citations, but of the ones I can find, I still don't see the information.  As an example, the different ages and timeframes given for Joseph.  They seem universally accepted within these articles, but I've yet to read a source document that includes them.  

I'm not arguing, I just feel like they're getting information from somewhere and I'd like to get my hands on that same info to see if it has any other info pertinent to out discussion.


----------



## coachn (Jul 11, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> I'm glad to hear it, and I appreciate your summation of the views and the points.  Especially regarding Joseph's age.  As a bit of a side note, is anybody else getting frustrated by sparse use of citation in a lot of writings out there?  And LAMason (and others on here), I'm not talking about you.  I, admittedly, first referenced the Catholic Encyclopedia, and it cites the Gospel of James as its primary source.  Yet, when I actually go to read the Gospel of James, it's missing some of the points made leading me to have to search for where some of these points come from.  As is the gospel of pseudo-Matthew, as is the gospel of the nativity of the virgin Mary, as is the Story of Joseph the Carpenter.  The last source cited by the Catholic Encyclopedia is the Life of the Virgin and Death of Joseph; a text I can't seem to find anywhere.
> 
> I did find this article http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/30/marriage-of-mary-to-joseph-the-carpenter/ which goes into great depth about these issues and has a lot of citations, but of the ones I can find, I still don't see the information.  As an example, the different ages and timeframes given for Joseph.  They seem universally accepted within these articles, but I've yet to read a source document that includes them.
> 
> I'm not arguing, I just feel like they're getting information from somewhere and I'd like to get my hands on that same info to see if it has any other info pertinent to out discussion.


You have just expressed what you had to do to seek answers.  You have also expressed why Freemasonic plays are so important:  They offer opportunity to learn how to research things, which is essential training in learning your own faith.


----------



## LAMason (Jul 11, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> I'm glad to hear it, and I appreciate your summation of the views and the points.  Especially regarding Joseph's age.  As a bit of a side note, is anybody else getting frustrated by sparse use of citation in a lot of writings out there?  And LAMason (and others on here), I'm not talking about you.  I, admittedly, first referenced the Catholic Encyclopedia, and it cites the Gospel of James as its primary source.  Yet, when I actually go to read the Gospel of James, it's missing some of the points made leading me to have to search for where some of these points come from.  As is the gospel of pseudo-Matthew, as is the gospel of the nativity of the virgin Mary, as is the Story of Joseph the Carpenter.  The last source cited by the Catholic Encyclopedia is the Life of the Virgin and Death of Joseph; a text I can't seem to find anywhere.
> 
> I did find this article http://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/30/marriage-of-mary-to-joseph-the-carpenter/ which goes into great depth about these issues and has a lot of citations, but of the ones I can find, I still don't see the information.  As an example, the different ages and timeframes given for Joseph.  They seem universally accepted within these articles, but I've yet to read a source document that includes them.
> 
> I'm not arguing, I just feel like they're getting information from somewhere and I'd like to get my hands on that same info to see if it has any other info pertinent to out discussion.



I could not find anything on "Life of the Virgin and Death of Joseph" either.

You probably have already seen this info:

“Thou hast been made blessed in thine old age, O father Joseph, seeing that God hath shown thee to be fit to receive Mary. And the priests having said to him, Take her, because of all the tribe of Judah thou alone hast been chosen by God; Joseph began bashfully to address them, saying: I am an old man, and have children; why do you hand over to me this infant, who is younger than my grandsons? Then Abiathar the high priest said to him: Remember, Joseph, how Dathan and Abiron and Core perished, because they despised the will of God. So will it happen to thee, if thou despise this which is commanded thee by God. Joseph answered him: I indeed do not despise the will of God; but I shall be her guardian until I can ascertain concerning the will of God, as to which of my sons can have her as his wife. Let some virgins of her companions, with whom she may meanwhile spend her time, be given for a consolation to her. Abiathar the high priest answered and said: Five virgins indeed shall be given her for consolation, until the appointed day come in which thou mayst receive her; for to no other can she be joined in marriage.”

* The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew*

*CHAP. VI.*

1_ Joseph draws back his rod. _5_ The dove pitches on it. He betroths Mary and returns to Bethlehem. _7_ Mary returns to her parents’ house at Galilee_.

AMONG the rest there was a man named Joseph, of the house and family of David, and a person very far advanced in years, who drew back his rod, when every one besides presented his.

2 So that when nothing appeared agreeable to the heavenly voice, the high-priest judged it proper to consult God again,

3 Who answered that he to whom the Virgin was to be betrothed was the only person of those who were brought together, who had not brought his rod.

4 Joseph therefore was betrayed.

5 For, when he did bring his rod, and a dove coming from Heaven pitched upon the top of it, every one plainly saw, that the Virgin was to be betrothed to him:

6 Accordingly, the usual ceremonies of betrothing being over, he returned to his own city of Bethlehem, to set his house in order, and make the needful for the marriage.

7 But the Virgin of the Lord, Mary, with seven other virgins of the same age, who had been weaned at the same time, and who had been appointed to attend her by the priest, returned to her parents’ house in Galilee.

* The GOSPEL of the BIRTH OF MARY*

CHAPTER XIV

After this it came to pass, when he returned home to the city of Nazareth, that he fell sick and kept his bed. And this was the time in which he died, as it is appointed unto all men. Now he was grievously afflicted by this sickness, nor had he ever been so ill as at present, from the time he was born. And thus truly it pleased Christ to arrange the affairs of Joseph the Just. Forty years he lived before he entered the married state; his wife remained under his protection forty-nine years, and died when they were gone. One year after her death, my mother, the blessed Mary, was committed to Joseph by the priests, that he might keep her until the time for marriage. Two years she spent in his house, with nothing remarkable occurring, but in the third year of her sojourn with Joseph, and the fifteenth of her age, she bore me in the earth, by a mystery which no creature can penetrate or apprehend, save myself and my Father, and the Holy Spirit, constituting one essence with me.

CHAPTER XV

Therefore, the whole age of my father, the justold man, made up one hundred and eleven years, for so my heavenly Father decreed. And the day on which his soul departed from his body, was the twenty-sixth of the month Abib. For now the fine gold began to lose its brightness, and the silver to be worn with use, I mean his intellect and understanding. Moreover, he loathed his food and drink, and his skill in the carpenter's trade failed him, nor did he any longer have regard to it. It came to pass, therefore, at daybreak on the twenty-sixth day of the month of Abib, that the soul of the old man, Joseph the Just, was rendered unquiet as he lay in his bed, "Wherefore, he opened his mouth and sighed, and smote his hands together, and cried out, with a loud voice, saying after this manner:

*THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH THE CARPENTER *

 THE  APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST-by B. Harrris Cowper


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 11, 2015)

Perfect! That last one I had not seen and was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!


----------



## LAMason (Jul 12, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> At this point, we're missing the 3 ruffians and that portion of the story. Did this part come from James the Just or was it just made up or something else? Hard to say. In storytelling the rule of 3 is common, so 3 attempts with eventual success could easily be independent. ...or not.



The following are from The Enclyclopedia of Freemasonry by Albert Mackey

*ASSASSINS OF THE THIRD DEGREE* There is in Freemasonry a legend of certain unworthy Craftsmen who entered into a conspiracy to extort from a distinguished Brother a secret of which he was the possessor. The legend is altogether symbolic, and when its symbolism is truly comprehended, becomes a surpassingly beautiful. By those who look at it as having the pretension of an historical fact, it is sometimes treated with indifference, and sometimes considered an absurdity. But it is not thus that the legends and symbols of Freemasonry must be read, if we would learn their true spirit. To behold the goddess in all her glorious beauty, the veil that conceals her statue must be withdrawn. Masonic writers who have sought to interpret the symbolism of the legend of the conspiracy of the three assassins, have not agreed always in the interpretation, although they have finally arrived at the same result, namely, that it has a spiritual signification. Those who trace Speculative Freemasonry to the ancient solar worship, of whom Ragon may be considered as the exponent, find in this legend a symbol of the conspiracy of the three winter months to destroy the life-giving heat of the sun. Those who, like the disciples of the Rite of Strict Observance, trace Freemasonry to a Templar origin, a explain the legend as referring to the conspiracy of the three renegade knights who falsely accused the Order, and thus aided King Philip and Pope Clement to abolish Templarism, and to slay its Grand Master. Hutchinson and Oliver, who labored to give a Christian interpretation to all the symbols of Freemasonry, referred the legend to the crucifixion of the Messiah, the type of which is, of course, the slaying of Abel by his brother Cain. Others, of whom the Chevalier Ramsay has been set forth as the leader, sought to give it a political significance; and, making Charles I the type of the Builder, symbolized Cromwell and his adherents as the conspirators. The Masonic scholars whose aim has been to identify the modern system of Freemasonry with the Ancient Mysteries, and especially with the Egyptian, which they supposed to be the germ of all the others, interpret the conspirators as the symbol of the Evil Principle, or Typhon, slaying the Good Principle, or Osiris; or, when they refer to the Zoroastic Mysteries of Persia, as Ahriman contending against Ormuzd. Lastly, in the Philosophic Degrees, the myth is interpreted as signifying the war of Falsehood, Ignorance, and Superstition against Truth. Of the supposed names of the three Assassins, there is hardly any end of variations, for they materially differ in all the principal rites. Thus, we have Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum in the York and American Rites. In the Adonhiramite system we have Romvel, Gravelot, and Abiram. Romvel has been claimed as a corruption of Cromwell. In the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite we find the names given in the old rituals as Jubelum Akirop, sometimes Abiram, Jubelo Romvel, and Jubela Gravelot. Schterke and Oterfut are in some of the German rituals, while other Scottish rituals have Abiram, Romvel, and Hobhen. In all these names there is manifest corruption, and the patience of many Masonic scholars has been well-nigh exhausted in seeking for some plausible and satisfactory derivation.

*GUIBBS *The names given to the Assassins of the Third Degree by some of the inventors of the advanced Degrees, are of so singular a form as to have almost irresistibly led to the conclusion that these names were bestowed by the adherents of the house of Stuart upon some of their enemies as marks of infamy. Such, for instance, is Romsel, the name of one of the Assassins in certain Scottish Degrees, which is probably a corruption of Cromwell. Jubelum Guibbs, another name of one of these traitors, has much puzzled the Masonic etymologists. Brother Mackey believed that he had found its origin in the name of the Rev. Adam Gib, who was an antiburgher clergyman of Edinburgh. When that city was taken possession of by the young Pretender, Charles Edward in 1745, the clergy generally fled. But Gib removed only three miles from the city, where, collecting his loyal congregation, he hurled anathema's for five successive Sundays against the Pretender, and boldly prayed for the downfall of the rebellion. He subsequently joined the loyal army, and at Falkirk took a rebel prisoner. So active was Gib in his opposition to the cause of the house of Stuart, and so obnoxious had he become, that several attempts were made by the rebels to take his life. On Charles Edward's return to France, he erected in 1747 his Primordial Chapter at Arras; and in the composition of the advanced Degrees there practiced, it is very probable that he bestowed the name of his old enemy Gib on the most atrocious of the Assassins who figure in the legend of Third Degree. The letter u was doubtless inserted to prevent the French, in pronouncing the name, from falling into the soft sound of the G and called the word Jib. The additional b and s were the natural and customary results of a French attempt to spell a foreign proper name (see Arras, Primoraial Chapter of ). An old handbook in French, Thuileur des Trentetrois Degrees use l'Ecossisme, published in l815 at Paris, mentions on page 79 that some had derived the word Jabulum from Zabulon, a Hebrew word meaning habitation.

*RUFFIANS* The traitors of the Third Degree are called Assassins in Continental Freemasonry and in the advanced Degrees. The English and American Freemasons have adopted in their instructions the more homely appellation of Ruffians. The fabricators of the high Degrees adopted a variety of names for these Assassins (see Assassins of the Third Degree), but the original names are preserved in the instruetions of the York and American Rites. There is no question that has so much perplexed Masonic antiquaries as the true derivation and meaning of these three names. In their present form, they are confessedly uncouth and without apparent signification.. Yet it is certain that we can trace them in that form to the earliest appearance of the legend of the Third Degree, and it is equally certain that at the time of their adoption some meaning must have been attached to them. Brother Maekey was convinced that this must have been a very simple one, and one that would have been easily comprehended by the whole of the Craft, who were in the constant use of them. Attempts, it is true, have been made to find the root of these three names in some recondite reference to the Hebrew names of God. But there is in Doctor Mackey's opinion, no valid authority for any such derivation. In the first place, the character and conduct of the supposed possessors of these names preclude the idea of any congruity and appropriateness between them and any of the divine names. And again, the literary condition of the Craft at the time of the invention of the names equally precludes the probability that any names would have been fabricated of a recondite signification, and which could not have been readily understood and appreciated by the ordinary class of Freemasons who were to use them. The names must naturally have been of a construction that would convey a familiar idea would be suitable to the incidents in which they were to be employed, and would be congruous with the character of the individuals upon whom they were to be bestowed. Now all these requisites meet in a word which was entirely familiar to the Craft at the time when these names were probably invented. The Ghiblim are spoken of by Anderson, meaning Ghiblim, as stonecutters or Masons; and the early amounts show us very clearly that the Fraternity in that day considered Giblim as the name of a Mason; not only of a Mason generally, but especially of that class of Masons who, as Drummond says, "put the finishing hand to King Solomon's Temple"—that is to say the Fellow Crafts. Anderson also places the Ghiblim among the Fellow Crafts; and so, very naturally, the early Freemasons, not imbued with any amount of Hebrew learning, and not making a distinction between the singular and ph1ral forms of that language, soon got to calling a Fellow Craft a Giblim. The steps of corruption between Giblim arid Jilbelum were not very gradual; nor can anyone doubt that such corruptions of spelling and pronunciation were common among these illiterate Freemasons, when he reads the Old Manuscripts, and finds such verbal distortions as Nembroch for Nimrod, Eaglet for Euclid, and Aymon for Hiram. Thus, the first corruption was from Giblim to Gibalim, which brought the word to three syllables, making it thus nearer to its eventual change. Then we find in the early works another transformation into Chibbelum. The French Freemasons also took the work of corruption in hand, and from Giblim they manufactured Jiblime and Jibulum and Habmlum. Some of these Freneh corruptions eame back to English Freemasonry about the time of the fabrication of the advanced l)egrees, and even the French words were distorted. Thus in the Iceland Manuscript, the English Freemasons made out of Pytagore, the French for Pythagoras, the unknown name Peter Gower, which is said so much to have puzzled John Locke. So we may through these mingled English and French corruptions trace the genealogy of the word Jubelum; thus, Ghiblim, Giblim, Gibalim, Chibbelum, Jiblime, Jibelum, Jabelum, rind, finally, Jubelum. It meant simply a Fellow Craft, and was appropriately given as a common name to a particular Fellow Graft who vas distinguished for his treachery. In other words, he was designated, not by a special and distinctive name, but by the title of his condition and rank at the Temple. He was the Fellow Craft, who was at the head of a eonspiraey. As for the names of the other two Ruffians, they were readily constructed out of that of the greatest one by a simple change of the termination of the word from am to a in one, and from uoz to o in the other, thus preserving, by a similarity of names, the idea of their relationship, for the old works said that they were Brothers who had come together out of Tyre. This derivation to Doctor Mackey seems to be easy, natural, and comprehensible. The change from Giblim, or rather from Gibalim to Jubelum, is one that is far less extraordinary than that which one half of the Masonic words have undergone in their transformation from their original to their present form  (see Ritual).

*AKIROP *The name given, in the ritual of the Ancient and Accepted Rite, to one of the ruffians celebrated in the legend of the Third Degree. The word is said in the ritual to signify, an assassin. It might probably be derived from ..., KaRaB. to assault or join battle; but is just as probably a word so corrupted by long oral transmission that its etymology can no longer be traced (see Abiram).

*CHAUCER AND FREEMASONRY* … Chaucer's Canterbury Tales also establish a link, though a less obvious one, between the poet and the Craft of Masons. The Masons' Company in London, with which Chaucer had official connections, sustained the St. Thomas Hospital there, left it many bequests, and often visited it in livery. Masons' Companies in two, and possibly three, other cities also helped to support local hospitals of their own named for St. Thomas and it is possible that they looked on St. Thomas as their Patron Saint. This Saint Thomas was the martyred Archbishop of Canterbury, St. Thomas Becket, who was murdered in his own cathedral in 1170. The fact that three knights, described at the time as "the three ruffians," murdered the fifty-three year old prelate by beating him over the head after demanding that he "give them his word," threatened to bury him in the rubbish, and that his body was buried in a spot between a memorial to John the Baptist on one side and John the Evangelist on the other, the two forming parallel lines, must have held a peculiar interest to men in the Masons' Companies, and may account for their support of St. Thomas Hospitals; and it is possible that Chauser, connected with the Mason Company in London as he was, may from that association have had his interest in Canterbury first aroused, and as a result of which he wrote in rhyme the Canterbury (St. Thomas' church) Tales….

*COMPANIONS, THE TWELVE* George F. Fort says that "the twelve Companions of Master Hiram correspond unquestionably to the twelve zodiacal signs, or the twelve months of the year. The groundwork of this tradition is a fragment of ancient natural religion, common to both Oriental and European nations; or, more properly, was derived from identical sources. The treacherous Craftsmen of Hiram the Good are the three winter months which slew him. He is the sun surviving during the eleven consecutive months, but subjected to the irresistible power of three ruffians, the winter months ; in the twelfth and last month, that luminary, Hiram, the good, the beauteous, the bright, the sun god, is extinguished" (The Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry, page 408).

*RUFFIANS, NAMES OF THE* Theosophical and occultist writers have argued that the combined endings of the three names of the Ruffians form together the mystical, Brahmin AUM, as noted on pace 111; and from this they argue that Freemasonry conceals mysteries from the Far East, etc. Historians have found that Speculative Freemasonry arose in England and developed out of Operative Freemasonry which was for some four or five centuries spread over Britain and Europe; an argument composed of speculations about so slight a fact as the endings of three names is not sufficient to overthrow the massive accumulation of data collected by those historians. Equally disastrous to the theory is the fact that at one time or another the Ruffians have had other names, and have differed in number; also, the a, u, m endings became crystallized in the Ritual after the founding of Speculative Freemasonry. In the old catechism called The Whole Institutions of Freemasons Opened, a short document published in Dublin in 1725, occur these curious sentences: "Your first word is Jachin and Boaz is the answer to it, and Grip at the forefinger joint.—Your 2nd word is Magboe and Boe is the answer to it, and Grip at the Wrist. Your 3rd word is Gibboram, Esimbrel is the answer." The origin of the Ruffians themselves is undiscovered; perhaps when the Ritual came to be enacted, instead of being largely composed of a set of drawn symbols with verbal explanations, they were introduced and given their names; if so, the endings may be nothing more than a form of verbal symmetry. (The subject of the many instances of verbal symmetry in the Work, along with other forms of symmetry such as 3, 5, 7, etc., awaits research; if the research were conducted according to the canons of literary analysis, in addition to historical analysis, it might yield light on the origin of the form of the Work now in use. Symmetry cannot be either coincidental or accidental, but must imply redaction, or editorship, or authorship. Bro. and Prof. David Eugene Smith has suggested that the three names are suspiciously like certain old variations on the Hebrew word for "jubilee.")

You may also find the following of interest:

 WHO WERE THE RUFFIANS? by C.Bruce Hunter Published in The Square Magazine Vol 29, March 2003

 The Three Ruffians

 The Murder of Thomas Becket, 1170


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 12, 2015)

Excellent read!  I was particularly fascinated by the part regarding Thomas Becket.  I'll need to go back and read up on that.

I'm going to throw out an idea here.  Kind of in the vein of brainstorming and see where this goes.

What if the story of HAB is symbolic of man's quest for the knowledge of God?  Then the story becomes one of God promising knowledge/paradise to all of those who are working.  Along the way, he is giving his instructions, but it is not until his plans are completed that he intends to reveal everything and bring us closer to Him.  But, along the way, there are some who are not content with waiting, so they break the rules to try to get it early.  Just throwing out some loose ideas, but you've got Adam and Eve who are given paradise and God speaks with the directly, but that isn't good enough so they taste the fruit of knowledge.  God has forbidden it, but they forced the issue which angers God.  Next, you've got the building the Tower of Babel with man trying to force his way to the level of God.  God has given man some of his knowledge and they use this to try to get more.  Again, God gets angry and denies their advance.  Finally, the son of God is given to man to give us good and wholesome instruction on our labors.  (this part doesn't quite fit the mold of wanting more knowledge, but cut me some slack, this is a loose theory)  At this point, we have the third 'attack' on God, this time 'killing Him' based on the idea of the Trinity.  Following this, the word of God is lost.  (our Muslim brothers would disagree, but we acknowledge a Christian bias by early Masons) and from that point forward, God no longer speaks to us.  His direct knowledge is lost.  Instead, we must find a replacement to use in its place (i.e., religion in the form of the writings of others, not Christ himself)

Again, just an idea that came to me, but I can see some parallels.  For instance, it's pretty easy to see how there would be similarity in the roles of HAB and the Great Architect.  I dunno.  Thoughts?


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 12, 2015)

LAMason said:


> *CHAUCER AND FREEMASONRY* … Chaucer's Canterbury Tales also establish a link....St. Thomas Becket, who was murdered in his own cathedral in 1170. The fact that three knights, described at the time as "the three ruffians," murdered the fifty-three year old prelate by beating him over the head after demanding that he "give them his word," threatened to bury him in the rubbish, and that his body was buried in a spot between a memorial to John the Baptist on one side and John the Evangelist on the other, the two forming parallel lines….



Does anybody know of the origins of this account?  Thomas Becket plays prominently in Canterbury Tales, but I can't seem to find any account of his murder.  Furthermore, every other account I find of his murder lists 4 knights, his refusal to submit to the king's will as being the reason, and that he was left to die inside the church where the monks tended to his body.


----------



## LAMason (Jul 13, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> Does anybody know of the origins of this account?  Thomas Becket plays prominently in Canterbury Tales, but I can't seem to find any account of his murder.  Furthermore, every other account I find of his murder lists 4 knights, his refusal to submit to the king's will as being the reason, and that he was left to die inside the church where the monks tended to his body.



I could not find any sources that meshed with Mackey's version either.  He did not list a source, so was probably just relating it based on the accepted version at that time.

I stumbled on this Doctoral Dissertation while doing some research.  It is long and dry.  I have only skimmed it and just started reading it in detail.  It does not speak directly to the development of the Degrees but you may find some new info that is worthwhile as far as understanding the time they were written and the men most involved.

The Architects of Eighteenth Century English Freemasonry, 1720 – 1740 by Richard Andrew Berman


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 13, 2015)

LAMason said:


> I could not find any sources that meshed with Mackey's version either.  He did not list a source, so was probably just relating it based on the accepted version at that time.
> 
> I stumbled on this Doctoral Dissertation while doing some research.  It is long and dry.  I have only skimmed it and just started reading it in detail.  It does not speak directly to the development of the Degrees but you may find some new info that is worthwhile as far as understanding the time they were written and the men most involved.
> 
> The Architects of Eighteenth Century English Freemasonry, 1720 – 1740 by Richard Andrew Berman


Thank you, Brother.  I hope to have some time to read over it later today.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 13, 2015)

And, some side degrees aprovide an explanation for why the ritual was written as it was.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 14, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> And, some side degrees aprovide an explanation for why the ritual was written as it was.


When you say side degrees, are  you referring to SR, YR, and some of the others, or do you mean things like the first 3 degrees as done by the SR (if you can find a lodge that works them)?

I haven't joined any of the appendant bodies as of yet.  I feel like I could spend a lifetime gathering the light from the degrees of the Blue Lodge.  At the same time, I also feel like if I'm not getting the full picture, then maybe I should.  I was about to go off on a huge tangent, but maybe I'll just start another thread.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 14, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> When you say side degrees, are  you referring to SR, YR, and some of the others, or do you mean things like the first 3 degrees as done by the SR (if you can find a lodge that works them)?
> 
> I haven't joined any of the appendant bodies as of yet.  I feel like I could spend a lifetime gathering the light from the degrees of the Blue Lodge.  At the same time, I also feel like if I'm not getting the full picture, then maybe I should.  I was about to go off on a huge tangent, but maybe I'll just start another thread.


I meant to specifically refer to invitational appendant bodies, rather than the Craft degrees, whether Scottish Rite, Swedish Rite, Rectified Rite. 

I encourage folks to complete the Royal Arch.


----------



## LAMason (Jul 27, 2015)

Some more reading for those interested:

[url=https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-tkBBXwyOFNYk9rQzlOWmU4VU0/view?usp=sharing ]HIRAM ABIF: The Traditional History Illustrated by the Volume of the Sacred Law by: Bro. Rev. MORRIS ROSENBAUM[/URL]

[url=https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-tkBBXwyOFNMkkzdlZJRTRDX3c/view?usp=sharing ]The Hiiramiic Legend and The Ashmolean Theory by: W. B. Hextall[/URL]

[url=https://hiram7.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/the-meaning-of-hiram-in-freemasonry-and-judaism/]The Meaning of Hiram in Freemasonry and Judaism, by: Rabbi Dr. Raymond Apple [/URL]


----------



## promason (Jul 31, 2015)

Hiram,the GUARDIAN OF ORIGINAL WISDOM,of ORIGINAL GNOSE,of ORIGINAL POWER,CONTINUE GOOD BETTER,WEEKEND EVERYONE,BYE,


----------



## LAMason (Jul 31, 2015)

promason said:


> Hiram,the GUARDIAN OF ORIGINAL WISDOM,of ORIGINAL GNOSE,of ORIGINAL POWER,CONTINUE GOOD BETTER,WEEKEND EVERYONE,BYE,



More total BS.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 31, 2015)

LAMason said:


> More total BS.


Oh, wait. He wasn't referring to me?


----------



## hanzosbm (Sep 21, 2015)

Just to add something on to this, either to bring new life or just round things out for those who many come across it later...

I was doing some more research today and came across the Inigo Jones Manuscript (from either 1607 or 1655 depending on who you ask).  From what I can tell, it has the first ever mention of HAB by name.  Another interesting tidbit is in this version, it names his father, Urias the Israelite.  It does mention his mother, the wid0w, a woman from Naphtali as well.

There is only one Urias in the Bible, and he is a Hittite, not an Israelite.  However, if we're willing to be a bit flexible, there is an Uri, son of Hur from the house of Judah, and therefore an Israelite.  There is no mention of a wife, but he does have a son; Bezaleel, who in Exodus 31 was given divine knowledge by God to be a craftsman to construct the original home for the arc.  Sound familiar?


----------



## RiverRatDoc (Sep 26, 2015)

Here's a 'possible' theory on HA. 
( caveat: my speculation ). 
I've run across this in older writings. HA was simply an allegorical character. In fact his name HIRAM appears at times as HIERAM as an acrostic in Latin in the old days 
"Hic Jesus est resurgens a mortuis"
Today, a lot of brothers look for evidence he was real, one of the central 3 characters. He is an Archetype for us, & a character meant to instill a lesson. 
Have fun


----------



## coachn (Sep 27, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> It may seem odd but Hiram is not a personal name.  It is equivalent to Prince
> 
> *Hiram I* (Hebrew: חִירָם, "high-born"       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_I
> 
> Hence we have various heros with the hr root:  2 Hirams, 2 Horus's, Hermes, Hercules


Hiram as a name means: My Brother is Exalted (Raised) (source: http://babynames.allparenting.com/list/Hebrew_Baby_Names/Hiram/details/)

It is however not a name as it applies to Classification; When used as a Classification, it is a title and one that is assigned to those who are Raised Brothers, deservedly or not.


----------



## coachn (Sep 27, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> The term "Raised" does not appear in your link.


Yep, your statement is technically correct.

However, your statement reveals so much more.  If you had simply invested yourself in more fruitful directions and did the work, you'd have quickly discoved that that:

1)  your observation is quite pointless, and
2) embarrassingly telling of your true intent.​
So!  Here,  let me point out the obvious.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exalted


----------



## coachn (Sep 27, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> Do you not find it odd using an English dictionary to explain Egyptian and Hebrew word roots?



Providing you with all the respect due your question, not as odd as having to deal with pointless questions where readers have to guess toward whom you're addressing them, but much less odd than having to deal with those individuals who assume that the words, used by 18th Century men to fabricate allegories that portray the created illusions of being around since time immemorial, have any significance other than the intent of carrying the meanings of those exact words as understood by those men of that time and not the actual meaning assigned to them by men of ancient times.

If you are not familiar with drawing assumptions that create superfluously bizarre conclusions, I refer you to Occam's Razor.  Lofty (you know: Exalted) explanations often overly assume too much in their premises and therefore often rely upon major suspensions of disbelieve by their readers to hold these conclusions high enough above the rubbish mountain to be examined thoughtfully and thoroughly for what they truly are.

If it hasn't occurred to you already, this is an "_English_ _speaking forum_".  The use of English dictionaries to explain the meaning behind English words clearly conveyed using the English language is not odd at all.  However, questioning their use?  Yes forsooth.  That is very odd.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 1, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> One other curious thing I found in this paper was the following: "While officially, the Grand Lodge of Kentucky uses a Webb-form ritual..."
> I'll need to do some reading up on this. The Kentucky Monitor was written by Henry Pirtle. I'm curious to see the similarities of what he wrote and the Webb ritual.


A nice little piece of info about my Grand Lodge. Thanks.


----------

