# How old is freemasonry?



## nixxon2000 (Aug 5, 2014)

So a brother did a presentation on the age of freemasonry today. after his research he believes that Socrates was talking about masonry in 500bc. 

It got me thinking how old is it really? Has anyone else here done this kind of research and what was your findings? 

I really just want to see what people here think. 

Thanks


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Aug 5, 2014)

I think it depends on which Freemasonry you are talking about.  The time frame for Speculative Freemasonry runs from 1717 to the present. Before that we have two time periods to discuss.  The first is the time frame of Operative Freemasonry, and the second is the time frame for the evolution of Operative Freemasonry into Speculative Freemasonry. 

But really, any discussion of Operative Freemasonry hangs on one vital question; "What do you think Operative Freemasonry actually is?"  Some, perhaps like the Brother you mentioned, see Operative Freemasonry as the pursuit of truth that goes back to the first time a man tried to rise above his fear and superstition and discover the truth about the world around him and his relationship to that world. Others will say that Operative Freemasons were men who stacked rocks and learned enough geometry to build arches and stuff. 

To me being a Freemason means to be a protector of knowledge against its three greatest enemies; Fear, Ignorance, and Superstition. In ancient times secrecy was used to protect knowledge from those who sought to destroy it.  Today circumspection and silence are recommended.

Many today will say that there is no certain proof of what Operative Freemasonry was all about. Yet there are clues in our history if we can find it in out ourselves to trust our hearts.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 6, 2014)

A case could be made that "Philosophical Operative Freemasonry" could not have existed until the European High Middle Ages. Before this time, the stone-stackers were deemed unworthy of intellectual consideration, and stone-stacking was just a lesser pursuit, like all other menial tasks. It may have had military or civil use, but it was one thing to be a proper architect who never dirtied his hands with the tools of a mason and quite another to be an actual grubby little mason. That was the attitude of the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Greeks, the Romans, and pretty much anyone else of that era.

It was the medieval period that saw the dignification of labor as an outlet or realization of higher spiritual or philosophical pursuits. In Aristotle's era, and for millenia before and after, labor was considered a detraction from spiritual and philosophical pursuits.

Of course, the Enlightenment had its own silly fairy tales, one of which was that the Middle Ages was a "dark age", where all learning was exterminated, no advancement occurred, and every single thought was rigidly dictated by the Pope. Then out of nowhere the ancient Greeks reappeared and in the space of ten minutes all the abilities of the early Renaissance appeared--POOF!

My own opinion, as should be obvious, is that even Operative Masonry as we understand it did not and could not have existed until the Middle Ages, when spiritual, scientific, philosophical, and practical approaches united like they never had before been permitted to do in human history.

The Medieval mason was a stoneworker, an architect, an engineer, a geometer, a civil planner, an inspector of public construction. At no time previous to that was the mason responsible for so much. Before then, the mason was just someone who was told what to do by someone much more important.


----------



## coachn (Aug 6, 2014)

How do you account for all the massive and marvelous stone & cement oriented and mechanically inclined engineering undertaken by the Romans?  Were not the Romans involved in these adventures not stoneworkers, architects, engineers,  geometers, civil planners, and inspectors of public construction?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 6, 2014)

The Romans had distinct social separations between the planners/engineers/architects on the one hand and the grubs who actually handled the stone or poured the concrete on the other. Labor had no dignity for the Romans, only directing labor did. You can have amazing projects directed by an elite who never dirtied their hands or only had a token dirtying in the process of their education. The "architects, engineers, geometers, civil planners, and inspectors of public construction" weren't the stonemasons. The stonemasons were mere laborers who had no prospect of becoming "architects, engineers, geometers, civil planners, and inspectors of public construction". The idea that a stonemasons could become "architects, engineers, geometers, civil planners, and inspectors of public construction" was a product of the Middle Ages, when labor was given dignity. Oddly enough, this dignity was bestowed by agents of the same "Catholic Church" that gets reviled so often, most often through the operations of the laboring monastaries. Many of the early great medieval masons were monks.

That being said, as the Renaissance started rolling around, monastic society had sunk into decadence, where many orders of monks eschewed labor and let lay commoners do all the work.


----------



## coachn (Aug 6, 2014)

It almost sounds like you're using the label "stonemason" to describe two entirely different groups.  One that did the work of apprentices and journeymen who would never have any hope of becoming masters (Roman times) and another group where they not only had hope, but did (Post Roman times).  Did either time have the Masters involved in that actual grunt work, or did both times have the masters just directing the actual work?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 6, 2014)

coachn said:


> It almost sounds like you're using the label "stonemason" to describe two entirely different groups.  One that did the work of apprentices and journeymen who would never have any hope of becoming masters (Roman times) and another group where they not only had hope, but did (Post Roman times).  Did either time have the Masters involved in that actual grunt work, or did both times have the masters just directing the actual work?



The Masters of the medieval masons started out doing grunt work. They started out as apprentices. Before the medieval period, the only way to be the equivalent of a "Master" was to be born to it. Thus, the fusion of Masonry as we know it, where the Apprentice can become the Master, did not exist until the Middle Ages. Everything before that is prologue, merely prelude.

It's like claiming that the sonata form of the symphony began in the Middle Ages. It didn't. Its ancestors were there, but the sonata form came later, a descendant of medieval music, but not the medieval music.

Operative Masonry is a descendant of many threads, but in and of itself, it did not exist until the Middle Ages. Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Levantine, etc. all those practices are ancestors. Each ancient masonic practice is tributary, but Operative Masonry is the ocean. We do not consider the Atlantic Ocean to be one and the same with the Ohio River, after all.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 7, 2014)

Well there had to be master masons who perfected all the stoned that built the pyramids ! 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 7, 2014)

Levelhead said:


> Well there had to be master masons who perfected all the stoned that built the pyramids!



The stonecutters were not Master Masons as we understand the term. They may have been well paid compared to other stone workers, but they were still schlubs. They had little prestige or authority. The directors of the project were born to the social stratum. The actual stonecutters had no chance and no hope of directing a project in that culture.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 7, 2014)

Im going to send you a private message.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 7, 2014)

Darn we cant attach pictures in private messages?


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 7, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> The stonecutters were not Master Masons as we understand the term. They may have been well paid compared to other stone workers, but they were still schlubs. They had little prestige or authority. The directors of the project were born to the social stratum. The actual stonecutters had no chance and no hope of directing a project in that culture.



We know enough about Roman culture to say this about the builders of the aqueducts and so on.  Asserting this about ancient Egypt is much more problematic.  Consider the Inca empire - Local farmers were required to labor for the empire during their off seasons and then return to their farms during their crop seasons.  The labor force was a peasant citizenry.  Not high class but not the servants either.  Once irrigation was invented the same system might have been in place in Egypt for millennia before records of slave labor started.  So it is not unlikely that the status of the laborers changed up and down considerably across the centuries.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 7, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> We know enough about Roman culture to say this about the builders of the aqueducts and so on.  Asserting this about ancient Egypt is much more problematic.  Consider the Inca empire - Local farmers were required to labor for the empire during their off seasons and then return to their farms during their crop seasons.  The labor force was a peasant citizenry.  Not high class but not the servants either.  Once irrigation was invented the same system might have been in place in Egypt for millennia before records of slave labor started.  So it is not unlikely that the status of the laborers changed up and down considerably across the centuries.



The labor for the great Egyptian projects was free. That's been well established by more recent Egyptological discoveries, but it was still low status. The leaders of the projects didn't start out as hewers and haulers.

I do wonder what is wrong with accepting that Freemasonry began in the Middle Ages as the heir of many traditions, including the Roman Catholic revalorization of labor as inherently noble .


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 7, 2014)

It started to be written down at a certain time as in records but has been in existence for way longer.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 8, 2014)

That claim can be made about anything. It can be claimed that the knowledge of electron microscopes was passed down mouth-to-ear from the paleolithic, in unbroken sequence, entirely without writing down a single thing, until the world was "ready", and then an "initiate" revealed the "mystery" in written form while merely pretending to be conducting experiments on the topic in order to discover it.


----------



## coachn (Aug 8, 2014)

Sounds about like how many religions get started and maintained.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 8, 2014)

Gee, another reason for Freemasonry to stick with what's verifiable...


----------



## coachn (Aug 8, 2014)

And for the very same reasons one would not want to stick to what is verifiable.  Freemasonry is not about verifiable facts.  It's about introducing men to the fact that not all things are verifiable.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 8, 2014)

But if anything can be made up, why worry about truth at all?


----------



## coachn (Aug 8, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> But if anything can be made up, why worry about truth at all?


Great question!  Freemasonry reinforces the Understanding that Truth and Fact are not the same thing.  Much within Freemasonry is made up (and in some view, too much!)  Facts are not the issue.  Truth is and what is fabricated is intended to convey Truth, not Fact.  (You find this in religious text all the time!)

To respectfully respond to your question one must understand and accept that because something is made up only means that it might not be factual, but it is intended to convey the truth none the less...  at least, to those not stuck in factual thought.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 8, 2014)

Autism and factual thought go together. It's hard-wired.

Too bad I'm some sort of "stuck" thing and will be "stuck" for my entire life, thanks to biology.


----------



## coachn (Aug 8, 2014)

Yet, you contribute as you can.  Every one can and does within his own limitations, if they so desire.  I know that I do, even with my own Asperger's challenges.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 8, 2014)

If any old rubbish can be made up, why bother getting any of it right, then? Why bother getting H- A-'s story right? Just make up whatever.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 8, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> But if anything can be made up, why worry about truth at all?



I recall reading about a very great teacher who made up stories to teach truths.  His stories get called parables.


----------



## coachn (Aug 8, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> If any old rubbish can be made up, why bother getting any of it right, then?


We bother when we see taking such actions will prove a point to another that we have heavily invested in.  We bother when what is being examined has some special significance to us.  We bother when we want to believe something must be factual to have value.  There are a lot of reason as to why people bother.  There are just as many reasons for not bothering at all.


> Why bother getting H- A-'s story right?


Right for whom?  There are a lot of differing versions.  Which one is "right"?  How are you defining "right"?


> Just make up whatever.


First off, if you truly believe that the H.A. Legend is Factual or even Historial, then you and I are not on the same page.


----------



## coachn (Aug 8, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> I recall reading about a very great teacher who made up stories to teach truths.  His stories get called parables.


You mean his stories were not Factual?!?!?!?  NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Everything I learned was a LIE!!!!!!


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 8, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> I recall reading about a very great teacher who made up stories to teach truths.  His stories get called parables.



And he was also God, literally and completely. Who else is is that qualified?


----------



## coachn (Aug 8, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> And he was also God, literally and completely. Who else is is that qualified?


I also recall that there was a vote taken back about 1700 or 1800 years ago that determined this man's status as a deity, of which was not generally accepted as fact prior.  But we might not be talking about the same guy.  I wonder to this day how such a thing could be substantiated as factual, 2000 years later.  Then I remember!  True Faith requires belief only and Facts are not part of the equation.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 8, 2014)

There was no such "vote". Or is it your contention that Christianity is false?


----------



## coachn (Aug 8, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> There was no such "vote".


If you say so.


> Or is it your contention that Christianity is false?


I don't see this as a either/or contention.  And I don't see this having anything to do with Christianity being false or true.

What I do see though is that you are taking it this way, and that responding to this would then direct the thread into matters of religious belief, which, as I understand it, is a matter of choice. 

For the record, I could not care less about whether others voted upon this years ago, or not.  I voted for myself, and that is ALL that matters to me.  And it would truly be sad to think that my voting one way or the other would make any difference to the vote of another man in this regard.  A man chooses to believe or not.  And if he has faith, facts are not an issue.  If fact were, then it is not faith.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 8, 2014)

Heres a picture . Now MOST of us know whats going on in the picture. Just read the caption, look at the picture, understand whats happening, look at how old it is and just think.hmmm.





Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 8, 2014)

Dont mind me im a masonic history lover!


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Morris (Aug 8, 2014)

I think the point is like this. I can start Jeff's flyers club today. I can trace aviation back to the wright brothers. Then I can trace it back to the first hot air ballon. Then I can possibly trace it back to Da Vinci or Abbas Ibn Firnas. So when did Jeff's club start?  Today 


Jeff


----------



## Morris (Aug 8, 2014)

I believe Freemasonry started in the 15-1600s. I have no real facts, just what I interpret from other people's research. 


Jeff


----------



## Morris (Aug 8, 2014)

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/buta.html

Just one of the litany of papers on this site and on this subject. For me, this makes sense.


----------



## nixxon2000 (Aug 10, 2014)

So I think I'd like to go back to my question. 

How old do "you" think freemasonry is? Who/which group started masonry as we know it today? Is there any evidence that someone like Socrates was a Freemason?






Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 11, 2014)

Levelhead said:


> Heres a picture . Now MOST of us know whats going on in the picture. Just read the caption, look at the picture, understand whats happening, look at how old it is and just think.hmmm.View attachment 4295
> 
> 
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App




You deny the possibility that Masons saw this picture and projected their own "meaning" onto it, regardless of its actual Egyptian usage?


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 11, 2014)

It can work either way! Just thought it was interesting. Im very open minded to origins.


Sent From Bro Carl's Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## crono782 (Aug 11, 2014)

IMO I think it is more oft than not the other way around. That is, masonry borrowed ideas from other mystery schools (or were perhaps" infiltrated" by members of other schools and ideas were assimilated) rather than masonry being of such ancient origin. But that's just me. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 11, 2014)

I agree


Sent From Bro Carl's Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Aug 11, 2014)

nixxon2000 said:


> So I think I'd like to go back to my question.
> 
> How old do "you" think freemasonry is? Who/which group started masonry as we know it today? Is there any evidence that someone like Socrates was a Freemason?


Well, someone has to go out on a limb here so it may as well be me.  I propose that history of the Ancient Mystery  Schools, as we know them, is approximately 6000 years old.  To say that these are Freemasonry one must be willing to accept all of the Ancient Mystery Schools as antecedents of the Freemasonry that we know today.  Additionally, there were probably schools of thought prior to 6000 years ago that are now lost to history.  These oral traditions no doubt fed the traditions that evolved into the Ancient Mystery Schools.

But the real question, as I stated before, is not "How old is Freemasonry?"  Because the question contains an unspoken assumption.  It assumes that we all agree on the answer to the question "What is  Freemasonry".  I feel that it is valid for me to answer your question because I have already stated my answer to the unspoken assumption in your question in the post quoted below.

I will now don my fireproof suit and wait for comments from my Brethern.



pointwithinacircle2 said:


> I think it depends on which Freemasonry you are talking about.  The time frame for Speculative Freemasonry runs from 1717 to the present. Before that we have two time periods to discuss.  The first is the time frame of Operative Freemasonry, and the second is the time frame for the evolution of Operative Freemasonry into Speculative Freemasonry.
> 
> But really, any discussion of Operative Freemasonry hangs on one vital question; "What do you think Operative Freemasonry actually is?"  Some, perhaps like the Brother you mentioned, see Operative Freemasonry as the pursuit of truth that goes back to the first time a man tried to rise above his fear and superstition and discover the truth about the world around him and his relationship to that world. Others will say that Operative Freemasons were men who stacked rocks and learned enough geometry to build arches and stuff.
> 
> ...


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Aug 11, 2014)

It is interesting that this thread does not allow me to correct grammatical errors in my posts using the edit function.  Perhaps a moderator can explain why.........................


----------



## crono782 (Aug 11, 2014)

No reason that I know of. The edit function doesn't work at all?


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Morris (Aug 11, 2014)

I believe operatives built building and not people. The Age of Enlightenment brought new ways of thinking. To battle the fear, ignorance, and superstition. Out of this era brought us speculatives. The teaches though are too old to date but the organization of our teachings are dated to the 15/1600s (opinion only). I'm open to other possibilities but I tend to favor reason over heart. It would be pretty cool though if I'm completely wrong. 


Jeff


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 11, 2014)

crono782 said:


> The edit function doesn't work at all?



There is no visible edit function for me and apparently for some others.  As there are reports by some that they can see an edit function it must be some sort of configuration issue.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Aug 11, 2014)

crono782 said:


> No reason that I know of. The edit function doesn't work at all?


The edit function does not appear on my page in this thread.


----------



## Willys (Aug 11, 2014)

There has been an edit function and I have used it.  Seems as though some couple or few months ago there was a forum application problem, which was resolved same day.  However, the edit function was no longer available.


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 11, 2014)

I tap any of these posts, or the "three dots" in the upper right, and edit comes up as a choice. This isn't to say everyone has that option...


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 11, 2014)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> The time frame for Speculative Freemasonry runs from 1717 to the present.


A bit of nit-picking, but three lodges founded a Grand Lodge in 1717, so obviously Speculative Freemasonry was alive and well prior to that date. Numerous lodge records support this fact.
When was morality first taught by metaphor? When did introspection for the purpose of personal betterment first occur? When did people first gather together with the explicit purpose of making the world a better place?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 12, 2014)

When and where did people first have a government? Does that mean the USA began then and there. And if the USA, why not ISIS? And if we consider such a "beginning" to define identity, does that mean USA = ISIS?


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 2, 2014)

crono782 said:


> IMO I think it is more oft than not the other way around. That is, masonry borrowed ideas from other mystery schools (or were perhaps" infiltrated" by members of other schools and ideas were assimilated) rather than masonry being of such ancient origin. But that's just me.
> 
> 
> Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


I believe this also. When Masonry as we know it was established is obviously a hot button issue but I do believe it was influenced by the ancient mysteries. JMO.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Oct 2, 2014)

Influenced? I'd say that Freemasonry followed various ancient mysteries into dark alleys, bashed them on their heads, and then went through their pockets for anything that looked interesting.


----------



## crono782 (Oct 2, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> Influenced? I'd say that Freemasonry followed various ancient mysteries into dark alleys, bashed them on their heads, and then went through their pockets for anything that looked interesting.


I dig the analogy. Still, if that were the case, do we really believe that the Operatives (or the pre-Speculatives if you will) came up with their own philosophy, realized it was lacking, then co-opted and assimilated previous doctrines to shore up their own? Seems like Occam's Razor would apply here in that (pre) Speculatives perhaps were already well-versed in the Egyptian Mysteries and birthed Freemasonry's philosophy from there. I guess it's a bit the same really, just semantically different...


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 2, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> Influenced? I'd say that Freemasonry followed various ancient mysteries into dark alleys, bashed them on their heads, and then went through their pockets for anything that looked interesting.


LOL, Point taken.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Oct 3, 2014)

crono782 said:


> I dig the analogy. Still, if that were the case, do we really believe that the Operatives (or the pre-Speculatives if you will) came up with their own philosophy, realized it was lacking, then co-opted and assimilated previous doctrines to shore up their own? Seems like Occam's Razor would apply here in that (pre) Speculatives perhaps were already well-versed in the Egyptian Mysteries and birthed Freemasonry's philosophy from there. I guess it's a bit the same really, just semantically different...



Why not believe that the Operatives were sensible enough to recognize deficiencies? However, the Operatives did not add the majority of ritual or mythology. That stuff was bolted on in the Speculative era, with lots of unverifiable claims of more ancient uses. As for invoking Occam's razor, later adoption is a far simpler explanation than some elaborate fairy tale of ancient lineages that managed to escape any and all notice until they were magically revealed in the 18th and 19th centuries.


----------

