Transformation of the degrees over time

[coachn]

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

Awesome!

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

I give up. Why?

 

[Glen Cook]

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]

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.

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.

...- 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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:

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

 

[hanzosbm]

So:

1. Do you accept as fact that Joseph was married prior to Mary and had children by this wife?
2. 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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.