Luigi Visentin
Registered User
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.