# A small quiz about mistakes and inconsistencies in the Legend of the Craft



## Luigi Visentin (Jun 12, 2016)

I hope that the following short article can catch your interest as I would like to propose a small quiz, unfortunately for you with no prizes!

First of all a premise to be clear, I'm an amateur researcher who claims to have decoded the Legend of the Craft (I know that someone would call me a "crackpot", and likely it could be true, but I'm not alone  ) to which I have dedicated some years (of my free time obviously) and I have written also a book about, but only in Italian.

Basically, in my opinion, the Legend really tells a story of a group of persons who were our ancient Brothers. The history, even if "heretical" if referred to what we currently believe, is absolutely in line with what has happened in certain places and at certain times. Unfortunately it is not possible to demonstrate with certainty if this story is real or simply "invented" (using real facts) in order to give an historical background to the Brotherhood. I have to say that there are some clues that it could be real. Unfortunately there is not any "not Masonic" text, which says clearly "masons were XXXX" except some versions of the Legend so this question will remain likely unanswered.

The key to understand the method used to compose the Legend is that, a part of some misspelling and some later changes, the composer (or composers) has used simply "nicknames" or alternative definitions to identify the personages, while some of them are called with their own real name. Some nicknames have been invented by Masons (Abraham and Euclid, for example), but others not and those not invented by Masons can be traced in the non Masonic history. Another important point is that the author has avoided to give some indications, or it has hidden them with symbolical terms, when it was clear that the information would have allowed to identify who were the Masons and this has avoided him to lie, so we can be confident that history, at least, is sincere. Unfortunately passing the time the history has been modified as the memory of some facts or names had been lost. One example is about Athelstan's son. Initially the responsible who has given the final Charges to Freemasons was Athelstan (Regius). Later it becomes Athelstan's son (Cooke). However as no son of Athelstan is known, someone thought that the "son" should have been Edwin, the brother. But "son" can have different meaning and indeed I can say that Athelstan had one "son" or better, based on the same explanation and according to history, he had at least two sons: one of them is the one that is interesting for the Legend.

Coming back to the "nicknames" what it has been written was something that any learned people of the Middle Age could easily decode. This explains why not all the information have been given and why there are so many mistakes and inconsistencies like the meeting between Abraham and Euclid, but also the whole part dedicated to king David and to king Solomon. The reference to the Bible is simply a way to mislead the "not Mason" reader, but also is according to a tendency existing in the Middle Age to relate a current fact to a similar one of the Bible, in order to give the idea of a "divine Will" behind the fact itself. Knowing the history behind the Legend it is simple to verify that mistakes and inconsistencies do not exist (a part those introduced later by our Brothers themselves).

Now, after this long introduction, here is the little quiz that I have invented about the Legend of the Craft. Pay attention that the Legend talks about two Salomons (one of the inconsistencies). One is the son of king David, but the other one lived more or less in the same days and was not a son of king David (at least it could have been an illegitimate as his father is unknown) therefore the Legend makes some confusion about them. Knowing this, the quiz is the following: "if king Salomon was not king Salomon and king David was not king David but king Salomon is known to the History as king Salomon, with which name is known to the History king David?".

Indipendently from the fact that about the Legend I could be right or wrong, this quiz can be solved from everybody as it is not so difficult but needs a little search. Enjoy!


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jun 13, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> >
> 
> (As a side note, I once joined a spiritual group and within a week had lost my astral clairvoyance.)



so your saying you can have out of body experiences and stuff?  come on bro?!


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jun 13, 2016)

You said astral which insinuates that you could go to another plain....which I believe to be hog wash.


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 14, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> My cat, when indoors would often look fixedly at something that I could not see.  I even tried passing my hand just in front of its eyes but it would not be distracted from whatever it was looking at.
> 
> Just because adult humans cannot see much, does not mean that others are so limited.



Just because most adult humans can not see any, does not mean none can.  Somewhere around 1-2% of adults detect the spirits of the world around us.  A few ghosts at the annual lodge memorial service that none of the other Brothers appear to have noticed and other such observations going back into childhood.  Some sensitives get a lot more detail.  Some sensitives get a lot less detail.

I've watched cats chase after spirits I could notice.  If I notice a spirit it is obvious to many cats.  I've watched cats chase after stuff I could not detect at all.  To me it's clear that cats detect spirits far better than I ever have.  To most what they see is cats chasing after nothing, not most of the time the way I see it, but every time.  That's the nature of how 98-99% of people don't detect spirits.  Because there is never any instrumental detection, those of us who detect the spirits of the world around us must never insist that others accept our observations.  We learn at some point that others don't detect them.

On astral projection, it's easy enough to trigger the feeling, but no one who reports astral projection ever reports events that happened on the other side of sound proofed walls.  As far as I can tell the feeling of astral projection is a feeling not an actual relocation.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jun 14, 2016)

I'm sorry but it looks like the matter has gone off topic! I do not know if there is an appropriate section for this kind of discussions.

Coming back to the quiz and referring to what seems to be an anwer, unfortunately Suleiman the Magnificent is an interesting figure but he has nothing to do with Freemasonry. Referring instead to the three ruffians, who do not appear in any point of the Legend of the Craft, the oldest traces are in the middle of eighteen century except, perhaps, if you accept "The Hiram key" and similar books as a reliable sources. In any case, in my opinion, an "undocumented source" is a "not existing source". If it exist it can be and it must cited. For example I say that there are two Salomons because there are copies of the Legend which report both names and they were different not only in the same manuscript, but also among the different version. This means that the writers have voluntarily written the two names differently because they must indicate two different persons:

Dowland Manuscript (1500): "Salamon" and then "this Solomon"
York Manucript (1600):  "Solomon" and then "this Sollomon"
Grand Lodge No 1 (1583): "Salamon" and then "Solomon".
(the dates are those on which there is a general consensus about)

Only later the "mistake" was corrected however, like in the case of Edwin, I do not believer that it has been a good idea!


PS: by the way, Tesla did not "discover" the three phase current as this is a method to use alternating currents. He was an inventor  but he has to share the merit with a lot of other persons like the italian Galileo Ferraris, for example (nothing to do with Galileo Galilei obviously). Tesla is very popular and he was a good inventor, but he is also much overestimated thanks to the Internet!


----------



## BroBook (Jun 14, 2016)

Where / what are those manuscripts my Brother and how did this tread get restarted ? 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jun 15, 2016)

I have cited manuscripts which reports the Legend of the Craft. An old collection is in the book "The old charges of British Freemasons" of Willam James Hughan, edited in 1872, which reports also the history of when and how they have been found. Updated information can be found online in some studies made specifically on each manuscript.
The second part of the question is not clear to me: the thread had been closed?


----------



## The Undertaker (Jun 19, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> so your saying you can have out of body experiences and stuff?  come on bro?!


Brother, I appreciate your insight, and comments. Don't stop.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 28, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> I'm sorry but it looks like the matter has gone off topic! I do not know if there is an appropriate section for this kind of discussions.
> 
> Coming back to the quiz and referring to what seems to be an anwer, unfortunately Suleiman the Magnificent is an interesting figure but he has nothing to do with Freemasonry. Referring instead to the three ruffians, who do not appear in any point of the Legend of the Craft, the oldest traces are in the middle of eighteen century except, perhaps, if you accept "The Hiram key" and similar books as a reliable sources. In any case, in my opinion, an "undocumented source" is a "not existing source". If it exist it can be and it must cited. For example I say that there are two Salomons because there are copies of the Legend which report both names and they were different not only in the same manuscript, but also among the different version. This means that the writers have voluntarily written the two names differently because they must indicate two different persons:
> 
> ...


Very interesting information.  I'm looking forward to doing some digging on this and following the path you've laid out.  Hopefully, today will remain uneventful enough for me to research this.  Thank you!


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 28, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> For example I say that there are two Salomons because there are copies of the Legend which report both names and they were different not only in the same manuscript, but also among the different version. This means that the writers have voluntarily written the two names differently because they must indicate two different persons


With all due respect, sir, I'm not sure that I agree.  Just looking at the Dowland manuscript alone, there are a great number of words and names spelled differently within the same document.  Master/Maister, Bible/Byble, Ewclyde/Ewclide, etc.  So I'm not sure that a difference in spelling can be equated to there being two different people.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jun 28, 2016)

It is a good remark and could be an alternative explanation. However I knew it already: initially I have related it to mistakes in the interpretation of calligraphy or due to tiredness of the writer (there are also many other explanations to this kind of mistakes) and I was convinced that Salomon and David were those of the Bible. 
However in different documents there is the same type of mistake that is using a name and then using another one in the same point of the document. Taking in count that names differs from one manuscript to the other, this looks like an intentional mistake. My guess is that the original sources were a little wider and considered the two personnages separated but later the matter has been "compressed" and the only characteristic conserved was that the two name should differs. Later again the differences have been cancelled and appears one name only, likely because a part of the real meaning of the Legend had been forgotten.

I can admit that the explanation seems weak, but I know that the Legend, in this point, refers to a time were there were indeed two Salomons, and is not really citing the Bible (simply compare it). Moreover I know that there are some documents that includes enough elements that could allow anyone to write a similar part "imitating" the Bible. However if I tell you which are the documents (that you can find also online) I will give you the solution of the quiz....


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 28, 2016)

I'm not entirely sure that I understand, but allow me to paraphrase and see if that makes it clearer. 

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that somewhere (not in the Bible) there is reference to a second person named Solomon who lived around the same time?  And that early versions of the Legend therefore are talking about two Solomons, not one.  Is that correct?


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jun 28, 2016)

I just read a book about something like this.  A piece of stone was found in Israel that had a story on it that had been accounted for centuries to King Solomon, but this stone was said to predate everything else and instead attributed this story to someone else, whose name was similar and who was a Muslim.  The Israelis didn't want this discovery to get out as it would completely destroy their claim to the Holy Land and the Muslims wanted to get it out for the same reasons.  In the End it was determined that the stone was a fake, Faked by the man who "found" it as he was dying of Cancer and wanted the money from selling it to leave to his Kids and his wife that was in a nursing home with Dementia.  It was a good book.

But back to your talking of the Legend, you know that the Masonic legend is just that....A LEGEND!  It was made up to teach a lesson.  There is no historical evidence that Hiram Abiff even existed.  The original Masonic lore dealt with Noah and the Ark, which I know nothing about other then hearing it mentioned.  Ive never read those early rituals.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 28, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> There is no historical evidence that Hiram Abiff even existed.


Nor is there any historical evidence that King Solomon existed.  Or Jesus, or just about any other figure in the Bible.  Even assuming that they are all completely fictitious and serve only to teach a lesson, how could you expect to learn anything from the lesson if you aren't reading the original story?  The Legend is almost certainly inaccurate as it stands today.  Was it ever accurate?  Who knows.  But assuming it was completely fabricated for the purpose of teaching something, and has since been changed, that means that the original lesson has been lost.  The attempt at understanding the origins of the story, be it fabricated or fact, is what will lead the reader to understanding the lesson.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jun 28, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> Nor is there any historical evidence that King Solomon existed.  Or Jesus, or just about any other figure in the Bible.  Even assuming that they are all completely fictitious and serve only to teach a lesson, how could you expect to learn anything from the lesson if you aren't reading the original story?  The Legend is almost certainly inaccurate as it stands today.  Was it ever accurate?  Who knows.  But assuming it was completely fabricated for the purpose of teaching something, and has since been changed, that means that the original lesson has been lost.  The attempt at understanding the origins of the story, be it fabricated or fact, is what will lead the reader to understanding the lesson.


My point is that the Masonic legend of King Solomons Temple is a fabrication.  No historical fact other then maybe the deminsions of the pilliars and what not, im not sure as I haven't read the entire Bible.  When people start looking for historical facts and "secrets" in our Lore is when I start to think that maybe they are a Cowan and became a Mason just to get the NWO secrets....


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 28, 2016)

I suppose it's a matter of semantics.  We are "a peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols", are we not?  And one could say that something veiled is something hidden, and one could go on to say that something that is hidden is secret.  Our ritual might not point the way to a cave filled with gold, but that doesn't mean that there isn't anything to be found by digging deeper.

Imagine the fable of the tortoise and the hare.  Certainly an allegory with a useful lesson that might instruct us on a better way of living our lives, at least in one small facet.  Now imagine that our fable had not been written down for a VERY long time.  Much like a game of telephone, it changes over time and pretty soon you've got a bird and fish who don't arrive at their destination and the moral of the story is that you have to travel to arrive somewhere. 
...okay, sure, there's still a lesson there, but something has been lost.  The fact that a tortoise and a hare probably never got in a foot race against each other is irrelevant to the wisdom contained within it.  Of course, by the time it gets to the story of the fish and the bird, the wisdom is quite distorted.

(and to bake your noodle even more, keep in mind that originally the story of the tortoise and the hare had nothing to do with procrastination and persistence but rather a mathematical paradox.  Just gotta keep pealing back the skin of that onion)


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 28, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> >Dowland Manuscript (1500): "Salamon" and then "this Solomon"
> >York Manucript (1600): "Solomon" and then "this Sollomon"
> >Grand Lodge No 1 (1583): "Salamon" and then "Solomon".
> 
> ...


While I'm not saying that Suleiman factors into the story, the Dowland Manuscript is almost certainly NOT dated correctly.  Or, at least not with a high degree of accuracy.  It was a submission to a newspaper with the person submitting it saying that it came from an old scroll, which he thought to be a copy of a previous manuscript.  There are so many unknowns regarding the date that the date attributed to it have more to do with context as compared to other documents as it does to anything concrete.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 28, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> I just read a book about something like this.  A piece of stone was found in Israel that had a story on it that had been accounted for centuries to King Solomon, but this stone was said to predate everything else and instead attributed this story to someone else, whose name was similar and who was a Muslim.  The Israelis didn't want this discovery to get out as it would completely destroy their claim to the Holy Land and the Muslims wanted to get it out for the same reasons.  In the End it was determined that the stone was a fake, Faked by the man who "found" it as he was dying of Cancer and wanted the money from selling it to leave to his Kids and his wife that was in a nursing home with Dementia.  It was a good book.


Is this the item you're referring to?  http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_joash.htm


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jun 28, 2016)

It might be what the book was based on.  When i get home ill post the name of the book

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 29, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> Nor is there any historical evidence that King Solomon existed.  Or Jesus, or just about any other figure in the Bible.  Even assuming that they are all completely fictitious and serve only to teach a lesson, how could you expect to learn anything from the lesson if you aren't reading the original story?  The Legend is almost certainly inaccurate as it stands today.  Was it ever accurate?  Who knows.  But assuming it was completely fabricated for the purpose of teaching something, and has since been changed, that means that the original lesson has been lost.  The attempt at understanding the origins of the story, be it fabricated or fact, is what will lead the reader to understanding the lesson.



I think the key here is "Was it ever accurate?".  It has a hidden assumption that literal truth is required to be able to learn a lesson from a story.  It's an invalid hidden assumption.

Humans learn best when their lessons are in stories.  We seem to have an instinctive need for stories.  When one set of stories are taken away we replace them with another set of stories. When comparative mythology was removed from the high school curriculum the Jedi stories in Star Wars became vastly popular for example.

People read and learn from novels that are intended to be fictional.

It's okay for stories to be based in a type of truth that is general and symbolic without being literally true.  It's okay for stories to evolve over time to remain well received across the generations.

To me the material at the start of this thread isn't about mistakes.  It's about how the story has evolved to remain well received across the generations.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jun 29, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> I'm not entirely sure that I understand, but allow me to paraphrase and see if that makes it clearer.
> 
> If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that somewhere (not in the Bible) there is reference to a second person named Solomon who lived around the same time? And that early versions of the Legend therefore are talking about two Solomons, not one. Is that correct?



Too many intervention to cite them all so I cite only this. However before answering I would like to write a couple of notes: if a Brother tell me a story why should I not believe him? The ancient manuscripts tell clearly that they are telling us the history of Masonry, therefore why we should not believe them? Obviously, as this history could be read by someone not of the Brotherhood they have been "concealed" with nicknames and other coded words that only a Brother could understand. For a person outside the Brotherhood they are a bunch of mistakes and inconsistencies but for an ancient Mason they were likely clear as spring water.

I think to have understood most part of the history behind and it is congruent from what is historically happened in certain place and in certain times. I do not know if it has been invented later and set in a suitable period of time and this is still a possibility. Obviously You are free not to believe it as you have not any element about what I say, but if you solve the quiz you will have a small demonstration that things can be different from what we have always thought.

Coming back to the quiz, Solomon does not appears in the Regius and in the Cooke appears alone but, even if the Legend follows more or less the same path, there are some different groups of manuscripts that some scholars have divided in "families" as they show peculiarities which differs from one group to the other and it has not been found a common line even if likely it should exist. Therefore some manuscripts reports a versione with a sole Solomon, other with that strange double name. This should answer the second question.

Referring instead to the first one the answer is: Yes, but I have not said that they lived at the time of the biblical Solomon or that one is the biblical Solomon.


PS: Suleiman has nothing to do with Freemasonry. I do not know the book of jdmadsenCraterlake211.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jun 29, 2016)

The name of the Book is STORM FRONT and its by John Sandford-A quick Synopsis-

"In Israel, a man clutching a backpack searches desperately for a boat. In Minnesota, Virgil Flowers gets a message from Lucas Davenport: You're about to get a visitor. It's an Israeli cop, and she's chasing a man who's smuggled out an extraordinary relic — an ancient inscribed stone revealing startling details about the man known as King Solomon.
Wait a minute, laughs Virgil. Is this one of those mystical movie-plot deals? The secret artifact, the blockbuster revelation, the teams of murderous bad guys? Should I be boning up on my Bible verses? He looks at the investigator. She's not laughing.
As it turns out, there _are_ very bad men chasing the relic, and they don't care who's in the way or what they have to do to get it. "They're crazies," she says.
"What kind of crazies?"
Palestinian crazies, Syrian crazies, Egyptian crazies, maybe a couple of Israeli crazies. Turks. Some Americans, too, I suppose. Maybe the Pope."


It was a good book


----------



## Bloke (Jun 29, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> ..... if a Brother tell me a story why should I not believe him?...



Because you were taught to be cautious and that freemasonry is a system veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols?


----------



## jermy Bell (Jun 29, 2016)

*ok, In November ,i will have been raised 2 years. and i have asked alot of questions that pertain to the 3rd degree second section. if these events had happened, were they recorded somewhere ? or word of mouth handed down ? Now with that said, If this was passed down by word of mouth, how much is actually true, and how much was left out or lost in translation over hundreds of years ? and if  none of it has any truth to it, why do we act out the play ? and then wouldnt the base of the 3rd degree be a lie ? and if it is, then why protect it as a secret ??????*


----------



## Glen Cook (Jun 30, 2016)

jermy Bell said:


> *ok, In November ,i will have been raised 2 years. and i have asked alot of questions that pertain to the 3rd degree second section. if these events had happened, were they recorded somewhere ? or word of mouth handed down ? Now with that said, If this was passed down by word of mouth, how much is actually true, and how much was left out or lost in translation over hundreds of years ? and if  none of it has any truth to it, why do we act out the play ? and then wouldnt the base of the 3rd degree be a lie ? and if it is, then why protect it as a secret ??????*


It's an allegory. 

Remember when the third degree was added. 

Compare the Hiramic legend to the Noachite legend.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 30, 2016)

I obviously don't have a time machine or a crystal ball to be able to go back and understand the thought process behind the introduction of these legends, however, there is another possibility (and that's all it is).  We know that Freemasonry has been influenced by other groups and philosophies over time.  Is it possible that one of these other groups held some kind of story similar to that of the Hiramic/Noachite legend and it found its way into Freemasonry?  Many of these other groups were seen as heretical, so IF their teachings were brought into Freemasonry, it would stand to reason that the easiest way to avoid a backlash would be to alter the names of the figures portrayed to biblical figures.  Obviously, there is absolutely nothing to back this up, nor am I suggesting that this is what happened.  Only that it is possible that the legend is based on an earlier story, one which may or may not be based on real people.
Another possibility is that they were in possession of some now lost apocryphal texts that contained some version of the legend.  Imagine one of the texts from the Nag Hamadi library falling into the hands of early Freemasons.  One of the stories contained within it was completely unknown to the rest of the world and dealt with biblical figures, but, again, they would've been seen as heretical, and therefore kept private.
Obviously, the legend has changed over the years, so to say that what we have now is original would be HIGHLY unlikely.  But, I don't think it is safe to say for certain the legend in its original form (whatever that may be) was fabricated by early Freemasons.

While the earliest version of the legend we have is Noachite in nature, it is not impossible that the earliest surviving example is an anomaly.  We have examples that pop up from time to time out of the blue of radically different versions of the ritual.  Add to that the likelihood that the examples of what we have in the way of written examples are not complete (think of our current catechisms and how much is not included) and the difficulty of understanding where this legend came from grows.

My point is, we simply don't know, and probably never will.  Nonetheless, I think that the search is intriguing and I for one will continue.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jun 30, 2016)

Bloke said:


> Because you were taught to be cautious


Cautious yes, but not paranoic! 
The coded language gives a protection enough. It was so good that we have forgotten the real story!


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jun 30, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> Remember when the third degree was added.



It is true, but I think that the origin of the Hiram legend is earlier and it has been simply adapted.


----------



## coachn (Jun 30, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> ...if a Brother tell me a story why should I not believe him?


Because calling anyone by a title does not automatically flip a trust switch to the "on" position within rational human beings.


Luigi Visentin said:


> The ancient manuscripts tell clearly that they are telling us the history of Masonry, ...


So do many other pieces of fabricated lore.  Writing within stories that they are history does not automatically make them "history".


Luigi Visentin said:


> ...therefore why we should not believe them?


Because we're not assumptive idiots placing trust in unfounded and unconfirmed premises.


Luigi Visentin said:


> Obviously, as this history could be read by someone not of the Brotherhood they have been "concealed" with nicknames and other coded words that only a Brother could understand.


How far down this rabbit whole do you intend on taking us?


Luigi Visentin said:


> For a person outside the Brotherhood they are a bunch of mistakes and inconsistencies but for an ancient Mason they were likely clear as spring water.


Assuming that these so called ancient Masons actually existed.


Luigi Visentin said:


> ... Obviously You are free not to believe it as you have not any element about what I say,


GOOD TO KNOW!


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 1, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> It is true, but I think that the origin of the Hiram legend is earlier and it has been simply adapted.


Oh, I can accept that, but the issue is whether it is true, not whether it was adopted and adapted


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jul 1, 2016)

The legend I refer is the one of saint Renaud of Cologne which has a lot of similarities with Hiram Legend. It was an architect, it has been killed by some fellows after having praied in a church for a reason that was related to the salary etc. Its legend/story is mixed with the one of Renaud de Montauban, a legendary knight of the carolingian cycle killed in the same way and for a similar reason in the same town. For the knight because he was paied "nothing but a penny a day" as per the Legend of the Craft, so the other workers were afraid that their salaries could be reduced (their salaries was of five pennies a day), while the saint because was a perfectionist, so the workers were afraid that their salaries could be reduced as they were not so good in working with stones. Between the two legends/stories there is of about one century and the saint was working on the S. Pantaleon monastery in Cologne, while the knight at the old cathedral (destroied by fire around 1200). This similarity has been noted in the past by masonic scholars but without any serious study about. Obviously for the Catholic Church the story of saint Renaud is true, while the one of the knight is a carolingian legend. A simple further information: the saint is the protector of Stonemason since 1706, eleven years before the first Grand Lodge.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 1, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> The legend I refer is the one of saint Renaud of Cologne which has a lot of similarities with Hiram Legend. It was an architect, it has been killed by some fellows after having praied in a church for a reason that was related to the salary etc. Its legend/story is mixed with the one of Renaud de Montauban, a legendary knight of the carolingian cycle killed in the same way and for a similar reason in the same town. For the knight because he was paied "nothing but a penny a day" as per the Legend of the Craft, so the other workers were afraid that their salaries could be reduced (their salaries was of five pennies a day), while the saint because was a perfectionist, so the workers were afraid that their salaries could be reduced as they were not so good in working with stones. Between the two legends/stories there is of about one century and the saint was working on the S. Pantaleon monastery in Cologne, while the knight at the old cathedral (destroied by fire around 1200). This similarity has been noted in the past by masonic scholars but without any serious study about. Obviously for the Catholic Church the story of saint Renaud is true, while the one of the knight is a carolingian legend. A simple further information: the saint is the protector of Stonemason since 1706, eleven years before the first Grand Lodge.


Right. The issue is whether it is a legend. You agree it is.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jul 1, 2016)

Yes.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 1, 2016)

I'm curious why you both feel that the story of St. Reinold is a legend.  Renaud de Montauban, is most definitely heavily embellished if not entirely fabricated, but why do you feel that the monk from Köln's story is made up?


----------



## Bloke (Jul 1, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> Legend:  from the Latin _legenda_ things that ought to be read


Really ? (Will check of course). That's the best thing i've read all day...


----------



## Bloke (Jul 1, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> Seems like my education was not entirely useless.
> 
> Amanda:  she who ought to be loved.
> 
> Agenda:  things that ought to be done.



Knew those two


----------



## Bloke (Jul 1, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> Legend:  from the Latin _legenda_ things that ought to be read




I'm  getting similar explanations 

"Origin Middle English (in the sense 'story of a saint's life'): from Old French legende, from medieval Latin legenda 'things to be read', from Latin legere 'read'. sense 1 of the noun dates from the early 17th century."

So not "ought to be read" but i see where you're coming from and love your point.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 1, 2016)

Umm...i think that legend refers to like maps and things....like u have to read the legend to know what the things on a map means.

Which when i put it like that that is what we do.  You have to see the legend in order to understand the lessons

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jul 2, 2016)

The two legends/stories are so mixed together that is not possible to distinguish clearly them. Theoretically the knight died one century before the religious. However in both cases the legend are much younger so they likely share a common origin also because for the Catholic Church Rinald was one of the four sons of Aymon, that is the same person. Therefore, even if for the Catholic Church the saint is existed, as for many other saints of Middle Age, his really existence is not proofed. In facts, contrary to other cases where there is a citation on ancient archives, chronicles or cartularies there is not any information about him. 
However this legend is so popular in Germany that you can find images of the saint in many churches, sometime as knight, sometimes as monk.
I think that this legend was also popular in ancient Mansonry, and that it has been modified in th eighteen century in the form that we know.


----------



## SimonM (Jul 3, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> I have noted that the names Horus, Hermes, Hercules, Hera and Hiram all use the same HR word root (meaning high born) and all were heroes.
> 
> It seems the name Hiram is a title - hence 2 Hirams in  Masonic legend.


From what language does the root HR come from? 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## SimonM (Jul 3, 2016)

But Heracles, Hera and Hermes are from Indo-European languages and Hiram and Horus are from the Afro-Asiatic family, they are not even closely related. 
Even Hiram and Horus are in two very distant branches of the same family. 

Do you have some reference of these names beeing related?


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 3, 2016)

Sometimes i think that the woo woos, to take a line from @coachn,  within our ranks are worse then the alex jones of the worlds.

When Mr Jones speaks his nonsense about freemasonry the general public knows hes just trying to get ratings for his shows, when @JamestheJust speaks his nonsense of freemasonry as a supposed member the general public will believe it.

Whether or not we borrowed names from other cultures, or adapated story lines doesnt chanfe the fact that every degree play from 1-32(i cant speak for 33 or the york rite or AMDs or Shrine or any other appendant body) are fabricated morality story plays.  Sure, we borrowed from here or there but none of them are true.  And we will never no why our founding brethern chose the names they did.
Its like a presentation i did in lodge a few months back on "Why we call it blue lodge"  i was hoping to find that some GM some where a cpl hundred yrs ago called it that and said so because "xyz".  That wasnt the case.  There is nothing i could find as to why its called Blue Lodge.  But there was alot on wjat the color blue meant to ever culture and civilization around the world.  So..why is it called Blue Lodge?  No friggen clue amd it would be irreaponsible and almost unmasonic of me to suggest otherwise....same with these other topics....no Brother should say why certain things are the way they are in regards to our ritual ceremonies, only why they THINK or what it means to that individual brother.

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 4, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> And if Masonic Science existed then it might be possible to generate hypotheses


EXACTLY! so u admit that Masonic Science is yet another alegory and doesnt actually exist?

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## coachn (Jul 4, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> EXACTLY! so u admit that Masonic Science is yet another alegory and doesnt actually exist?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


<sigh> ...and while you're chasing these rabbits, you'd have to determine what Masonic Science actual was denoting in either the allegory or whatever.  And while you're at it,  you might engage in painstakingly determining whether the writer or speaker who used the term actually meant Masonic Science or was just loosely referring to Freemasonic Science and not Actual Masonic Science because they simply either didn't know any better OR they actually do believe that they are on in the same.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 4, 2016)

coachn said:


> <sigh> ...and while you're chasing these rabbits, you'd have to determine what Masonic Science actual was denoting in either the allegory or whatever.  And while you're at it,  you might engage in painstakingly determining whether the writer or speaker who used the term actually meant Masonic Science or was just loosely referring to Freemasonic Science and not Actual Masonic Science because they simply either didn't know any better OR they actually do believe that they are on in the same.


Your right @coachn.  I do mean freemasonic science, as masonic science would be the science that stonemasons use to do their work.  I think we can be safe to assume on foums like here that when someone says mason they mean freemasons.

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## coachn (Jul 4, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Your right @coachn.  I do mean freemasonic science, as masonic science would be the science that stonemasons use to do their work.  I think we can be safe to assume on foums like here that when someone says mason they mean freemasons.


Yep.  That's a pretty safe assumption for sure.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 5, 2016)

Freemasonic "science" is the "experiment" of man.  Man making himself better

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 5, 2016)

The allegory is the word science

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## coachn (Jul 5, 2016)

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...aphor_in_praise_of_the_medieval_literary.html


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 5, 2016)

No science is not allegory for experiment.  Im saying that the word science is the allegory.  Freemasonic "science" is to me the building of better men

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## coachn (Jul 5, 2016)

> It seems to me that building better men is the work of the EA.  The FC is required to investigate the hidden mysteries of nature and science.


You've posted this before.  You've missed the entire point of the three degree progression.

EA = Heart Work (Emotions) = Mastering The Self, preparing to learn
FC = Head Work  (Intellect) = Mastering The Universe, learning how to learn
MM = Spirit Work = Mastering The Word, learning and teaching

All THREE better men, when their Work is done.  However, experiencing their ritual as nausea shall not do the job and may actually hold you back.



> Success in the work of the FC logically is the precondition for the discovery and practice of Masonic Science.



Discovery, no.  It is already discovered. 

Practice, yes, but only in the respect that it trains the mind to recognize and use patterns.



> I have hardly ever seen a brother attempt the work of the FC.



Hang with my Engineering homies and you'll see far more.



> As a result few brethren discover Masonic Science - with the honorable exception of some Fraters of the SRIA.



LOL!  You would do well to expand your circle.


----------



## coachn (Jul 5, 2016)

> You must have a different ritual.


Yeah, that must be the case.  Freemasonic Ritual is quite different from others.


----------



## dfreybur (Jul 6, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> No science is not allegory for experiment.  Im saying that the word science is the allegory.  Freemasonic "science" is to me the building of better men



The modern version of the capitalized Scientific Method was codified starting in the generation of Galileo and ending in the generation after Newton.  The meaning of the word "science" was in flux until about 1750ish.  This timing matches well with the publication of Masonic ritual in the decades between 1717 and 1750.

The word science in our ritual is not capitalized and doesn't quite mean what we mean by the capitalized Science now.  It's more general.  Less subject to numerical analysis and experiment.  It was more what had been learned over the ages and less a statistical analysis of methods and results.


----------



## Bloke (Jul 6, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> "The definition of Freemasonry that it is "a* science of morality*, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols," has been so often quoted, that, were it not for its beauty, it would become wearisome."  Albert Mackey
> http://sacred-texts.com/mas/sof/sof03.htm#01



Which in our ritual was altered to a "system of morality"


----------



## coachn (Jul 6, 2016)

> Quite so.  That avoids having to explain the science.


or it better defines the focus because the word "science" simply was an extremely poor word choice with which to begin.


----------



## Ressam (Jul 7, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> "The definition of Freemasonry that it is "a* science of morality*, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols," has been so often quoted, that, were it not for its beauty, it would become wearisome."  Albert Mackey
> http://sacred-texts.com/mas/sof/sof03.htm#01



Greetings, Mr.James!
Again&again you are confusing the definition!
According to your logic -- Freemasonry = Morality!


----------



## Ressam (Jul 7, 2016)

Mr.James,
may be it's better to say:
Freemasonry is the Organization(Brotherhood), where Members are studyin' The Science of Morality?


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jul 10, 2016)

The word "Science" comes from Latin "scientia" which means "knowledge". Before establishment of the scientific method which characterizes the modern "science" it was used only with the meaning above. However this meaning, as far as I know, is still valid also in case you are considering the modern scientific method as this method is used to have a "knowledge" of the nature. This is likely the reason why it is still in use (a philosopher of science can be much more precise than me). Therefore I do not think that it is a mistake to use the term "Masonic Science".

However a step above ancient "Science" was "Art" and Masonry has always been defined primary as an "Art". To make a simple example, if basketball is a "Science" the one of Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant or Stephen Curry is an "Art". The reference of ancient Masonic Art in the Liberal Arts was "Geometry" an Art of the Quadrivium, nothing to do with the "Word" which is a matter of the Trivium (Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric). In this definition the Legend of the Craft is very clear even acknowledging the importance of all the Liberal Arts. 

About the Ancient Masonic Art I think that it is still well alive but not practiced in Masonic Lodges even if they goes on mantaining many of its traditional elements. The reason is that from about the end of seventeen century (the date is only alleged because it stays between Ashmole and the 1717) some of our ancient Brothers decided to overlap the ancient teachings with others based mainly on "Christian Cabbala" and other traditions (and this has caused a lot of confusion in the search of the origin of Masonry). As an interesting reading I suggest "De armonia mundi totius" (1525) of Francesco Giorzi or Zorzi, an Italian franciscan friar very popular in Tudor and in the Elizabethan age in England and in whole Europe. In this work there is a good introduction and guide to the concepts related to the design and construction of sacred buildings, and it speaks extensively about the G.A.O.T.U. and the sacred Geometry.


----------



## coachn (Jul 10, 2016)

> A well known science and art is Alchemy...


It is not well-known as either.


> ...and that was practiced by some brethren pre-1717.


There is no proof whatsoever that brethren of the Society of Free & Accepted Masons practiced Alchemy prior to 1717.


> Isaac Newton wrote more about alchemy than he did about mathematics.


He was not a brethren.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 10, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> A well known science and art is Alchemy


I dont know that Alchemy is a science. Has anything ever been turned in to gold?  Didnt think so



JamestheJust said:


> Alchemists are sometimes referred to as "celestial farmemers"



What?


Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 10, 2016)

I just googled "celestial farmers" and all i found was a farm by that name and a preschool...NOTHING about alchemy

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## coachn (Jul 10, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> I just googled "celestial farmers" and all i found was a farm by that name and a preschool...NOTHING about alchemy
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


Celestial farmers?  Don't they use unicorn dung to grow magic bean stalks?


----------



## dfreybur (Jul 10, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> I dont know that Alchemy is a science.



Alchemy was the lower-case-s science or natural philosophy that eventually gave birth to chemistry.  Chemistry is the capital-S Science of numerical methods founded in the generations near Newton.  Newton remained an alchemist on that topic even though he was the greatest physicist and optician of his era as well as battling for top billing in maths based on his being a co-inventor of calculus.  Newton spanned the era of Science and the era of science in a way only possible in his generation and the generation immediately before and after his life.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 10, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> At the risk of stating the obvious: alchemists seek to perfect matter by finding the live seed within various substances including minerals, and then cultivating the seed with attention to planetary and stellar influences.
> 
> Alchemy can be practiced upon minerals, plants and animals.
> 
> ...


Wll i can assure you didnt run that risk as none of that was obvious

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## coachn (Jul 10, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Wll i can assure you didnt run that risk as none of that was obvious
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


Ah!  But it is obvious if you are growing magic bean stalks supported by precious and rare unicorn dung.


----------



## Ressam (Jul 12, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> The 3 components required for alchemical perfection of matter (veiled as salt, sulphur and mercury) appear in the 18th degree where the candidate is perfected, as salt, bread and wine.



Greetings, Mr.James!
I'm tellin' again&again:
Alchemy & other occultism related things are so-so unnecessary!
Christ was -- The Greatest Alchemist at that Times!
He had that Skill -- "Managing Matter"(transformation of water to wine, recovery of illed people).
But they killed Him.
The Algorithm for Humanity is:
1. Satan(don't confuse with Lucifer) dissappears.
2. Then Gates to Universe will be Opened for Humans.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jul 12, 2016)

Ashmole was interested in Alchemy but this does not automatically means that ancient Masonry practiced Alchemy. However I think that Alchemy was one of their interests but for reasons that are too long to explain. The problem is that nowadays Alchemy is considered simply from its esoteric aspects. However Alchemy was not only chemistry but was a general name that covered al lot of different disciplines, some esoteric and some not like medicine and metallurgy. Already much before the modern scientific method there were scholars who considered those who looked for stuffs like the "gold fabrication" or the "creation of philosopher's stone" as crazy guys, while the methods to improve steel quality were regarded as serious, even if theye were really fanciful. The absence of a scientific method was a big limit, but in this regards Alchemy was not different from Architecture where many concepts and design method had not a scientific base and caused a lot of failures and collapses, also of buidings that we regards nowadays as masterpieces.


----------



## coachn (Jul 12, 2016)

> ...Each person can choose the belief that bests suits them.


Sort of like cafeteria style belief systems...


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Oct 19, 2016)

After four months none has tried an answer: then, perhaps, is time for a little hint .. but I have already given it!


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Oct 20, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> your puzzle might tell more about the writers of the OT than about historical events.


I'm not sure to have right understood, but I can not give you any help about the Old Testament. The author or the authors of the Legend of The Craft likely believed that what was in the Old Testament was true, but the strange matter is that this had nothing to do with the reason why they have used it for the composition of the Legend. What it has been included in the Legend is because has a specific meaning or reason or because it has been already used from someone else and was a simply way to hide the contents.

To make an example if nowadays I would like to describe a strong and brave soldier I would use the name "Rambo" (I think that it is the same in U.S. ). The Legend uses "Uriah", which was a guard of king David and husbands of Betsabea. However the same Legend tells you that he was "israelite", while the Bible tells that he was the "hittite". This means that you should not look at the Old Testament to find who he really was !


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Oct 22, 2016)

Independently from the fact that Solomon and David have been really existed or not, for the author (or authors) of the Legend existed and histories of Bible were true. This should be of help to understand where to look: from when these histories were considered as real in west european territories? Answer: when these territories becomes christian. Therefore you have a starting period.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 22, 2016)

On legends and truth - Legends can be true in the sense of containing true and useful wisdom without being true in the sense of being on video.  Much in our degrees is truth even if Solomon was not a historical figure who actually lived.


----------

