A point of clarification on the Original Birth theory

[MasonicAdept]

I have delved into the varying theories on the origins of Freemasonry. I, myself, am a Transition Theorist, but I have been looking into other theories, such as Eric Ward's "Original Birth" Theory.
Eric Ward put forth the opinion that there must be a distinction between the age of Ritual and the age of Speculative Freemasonry.
I am interested in those that hold the Original Birth theory and this particular point, why must there be a distinction between the the ages of ritual and Speculative Freemasonry?
Is there a clear and definitive distinction that can be made at all?

 

[MasonicAdept]

I am not familiar with the term Original Birth.

As for the Transition Theory, it may be of use to consider that the earliest Gothic cathedrals were the largest and highest. This suggests almost no learning curve followed by a loss of skill. So from where did the skills arise? Why did the stonemasons of the time fail to keep them at the same level? Was there another source of expertise?

Similarly, why did the 3rd degree suddenly emerge as Noah and 2 years later as Hiram? Was there another source of expertise?

With the assistance of Sumerian and Egyptian mythology it is possible to decode aspects of both HRA and 18th that are not explained in Masonic literature, for example why the 18th degree is military - and who is Holy Royal Arch. (Abraham came from Sumer)

There is material dealing with other ancient traditions in Freemasonry and the Ancient Gods https://www.amazon.com/Freemasonry-Ancient-Gods-J-Ward/dp/1162560231

A study of Mithraic temples is also valuable.

Based on such studies it is not hard to see ritual elements that far predate the Freemasonry of 1717.

@JamestheJust interesting. I do not disagree that ritual elements predate 1717, they would have to to hold the position of Transition. The question being asked is the ritual age distinctly separated from the speculative age?

 

[MasonicAdept]

@JamestheJust ritual practice is the link between all of the Ancient Mystery School and Freemasonry. The book by Bro. Robert Herd, The Iniatic Experience, is where I draw the most understanding of this fact. The best approach to make sure that the discussion is focused on my question, without becoming too broad, is to ask you:

Give me your synopsis of the origins of Freemasonry...

 

[Ressam]

On the Official UGLE website,
it's written that:
According to consensus among Masonic scholars -- In Middle Ages, from The Organization of Operative Stone Masons -- who were -- building Cathedrals.
That's OK!
But the question is:
Why there is -- No Names& Surnames!?

 

[coachn]

I have delved into the varying theories on the origins of Freemasonry. I, myself, am a Transition Theorist, but I have been looking into other theories, such as Eric Ward's "Original Birth" Theory.
Eric Ward put forth the opinion that there must be a distinction between the age of Ritual and the age of Speculative Freemasonry.
I am interested in those that hold the Original Birth theory and this particular point, why must there be a distinction between the the ages of ritual and Speculative Freemasonry?
Is there a clear and definitive distinction that can be made at all?

If you want to take a serious look at Freemasonic Origins, I highly recommend "The Craft Unmasked! The Origin of Freemasonry and its Practice".

Yes, I wrote it. Here's a review by a very well known and dear Brother: http://freemasoninformation.com/2015/09/the-craft-unmasked/

 

[coachn]

As for the Transition Theory, it may be of use to consider that the earliest Gothic cathedrals were the largest and highest. This suggests almost no learning curve followed by a loss of skill.

Perhaps the learning curve told them that they should not over do it.

So from where did the skills arise?

Experience is the most likely source.

Why did the stonemasons of the time fail to keep them at the same level?

You assume it's failure when it could have been more likely success.

Similarly, why did the 3rd degree suddenly emerge as Noah and 2 years later as Hiram?

The Hiram play was more compelling and hence this improved its survival.

Based on such studies it is not hard to see ritual elements that far predate the Freemasonry of 1717.

One can easily create a play with ancient elements. That does not make it ancient.

If this is true, then we must consider if Freemasonry is derived from those that taught the human race.

"If" being the operative condition.

 

[coachn]

Why is it hard to concentrate on serious issues?

My thoughts exactly!

Whence comes the interference?

Dittos!

 

[Warrior1256]

Interesting topic. I look forward to additional comments.

 

[Blake Bowden]

Sorry about the posts that had nothing to do with the topic. They've been removed and authors notified.

 

[Luigi Visentin]

I have not yet received the notification but I apologize anyway !