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

[Luigi Visentin]

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]

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]

..... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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.

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".

...therefore why we should not believe them?

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

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?

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.

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

GOOD TO KNOW!

 

[Glen Cook]

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]

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]

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]

Yes.

 

[hanzosbm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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