h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I cannot possibly have an intelligent conversation with you if you keep trotting out these ridiculous red herring arguments. What the hell does the Turin Shroud have to do with this conversation?

because you keep rambling on about scrolls and documents, without producing the slightest evidence that it it exists or ever did. Your argument seems to be that just because we havent found it doesnt mean it doesn't/din't exist. A bit like weapons of mass destruction.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The evidence is as follows:

1) A handful of individuals excavated the Temple of Jerusalem. They shortly returned to Rome, where the pope conferred great wealth and influence on them for unexplained reasons. Ostensibly they were charged with protecting the road from Damascus to Jerusalem for pilgrims, but they didn't actually execute this charge.

2) The Templars exhibited heretical beliefs and attitudes which were never discouraged by the orthodoxy, and have NO KNOWN SOURCE. What little is known of their practices resembles the initiations inherent in mystery cults similar to gnosticism. All knowledge of such cults and practices had been eradicated from the Western world by the church centuries before. Gnosticism was preserved in Ethiopia and part of modern-day Iraq, but the West's only real knowledge of it comes from a discovery of scrolls in the mid-1940s. So how did the Templars learn of it?

3) Templar artwork likewise displays elements of heresy that were never explained nor prosecuted, and have no known source.

The three great mysteries of the Templars are these:

1) What was the basis of their meteoric and unexplained rise to influence?
2) What was the basis of their heretical beliefs, and why were they not punished for them?
3) What happened to them after they escaped persecution in France?

Apply Occam's Razor to questions one and two and the simplest answer is that the Templars found something at Jerusalem of incredible value to the church, and that at least part of the object or objects of value were the basis of their heretical beliefs. It's easy to imagine the masters of the temple burying documents to protect them from destruction by their Roman overlords. The Essenes at Qumran hid their documents in nearby caves for pretty much the same reason.

If you disagree, let's hear your theories on questions 1 and 2.

Thank you for presenting the evidence so clearly.

I would tend to argue that Occam's razor would weigh against bringing Gnostic writings into a piece on the Templars, as their 'history' does not need them (IMHO) in order to make sense.

There is a sensible article in the Templars in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is online. Interestingly, there is an article on Gnosticism in the same source.

I suppose the return question is, if one were to dig under Rosslyn and find nothing, would that suffice to make an end of the theories?

Whether they were Gnostic or some other similar mystery cult, their beliefs and practices had to come from somewhere.

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia does contain a good article on Gnosticism. It's very thorough. And in being thorough, it lists a lot of references to previous work on the subject, even work the article goes on to discredit. The lack of any references predating the 19th century is telling... clearly the Catholics were not researching Gnosticism prior to then.

So how did the Templars learn of it in the 12th century?

You've said Occam's Razor can be applied to a Templar discovery of heretical religious texts, since they can be explained without them. I'd like to know what alternate theories you have for explaining their beliefs, and the church's blindness to them.

Branching off topic a bit... that Templar article in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia leaves much to be desired. It does not mention the excavation of the Temple at all, and it does nothing to explain why the pope should embrace 9 beggars, make of them a militant order, and bestow property and power upon them, nor why they were instantly successful in recruiting.

But it's not surprising that this article deliberately avoids mentioning anything potentially contentious when you put it in the context in which it was written, which was very shortly after the Modernist movement turned out to be such a disaster for the Catholic church. Modernism was the application of modern scientific method to support religious dogma (which was being heavily assailed in the wake of archaeological and anthropological developments, and Darwin's work in particular), and it backfired... Catholic scholars produced works increasingly questioning of the church and the religion in general, and the church banned those books and responded with a conservative backlash. Such a backlash is evident in that article.

Hmmm... The above posting looks as thought it comes from a global viewpoint - admittedly, so is mine. But I recall the article on Gnosticism does refer to earlier sources, even to some in antiquity.

There remains the earlier question: if Rosslyn were excavated and nothing found, would that put an end to the theory, or would it at least count as evidence against it?

The reasoning is as follows. If one is saying, IF there is hidden Templar treasure of some sort (e.g. writings), and the most likely location is Rosslyn - say 60%, for the sake of argument; so that if there is no treasure there, then the likelihood of the Templar treasure theory being correct decreases by that same 60%; THEN it may be worth digging. It might even be worth digging at the next likely candidate location, if the original probability were high enough. But at some point clearly the chances become too small to justify this theory.

On the other hand, if one is saying there IS hidden treasure, and if it's not at Rosslyn then the whole probability is transferred over the other possible candidate locations, the whole thing is a complete waste of time because the search is being driven by wishful thinking. There has to come a point when absence of evidence counts as evidence of absence - pace Rumsfeld.

The article on Gnosticism does discuss sources from antiquity... indeed, it's the only way to study the subject. It is the lack of Catholic references from the 6th-19th centuries that is disturbing. Why no observations from Templar contemporaries such as Thomas Aquinas? Because the church actively discouraged study of the topic, and relations with those cultures who had preserved knowledge of it were not favorable to a scholarly exchange.

I'm still interested in alternate theories of how the Templars acquired such knowledge and were impressed by it without the involvement of ancient documents.

"There remains the earlier question: if Rosslyn were excavated and nothing found, would that put an end to the theory, or would it at least count as evidence against it?" - I don't really see the value of this exercise. The excavation of various sites would prove that there is nothing of value at those sites. If enough sites were investigated and turned up nothing whatsoever, then certainly the claims that the Templars found refuge in Scotland would have to be considered in a new light.

However... we've never found the Ark of the Covenant, but that doesn't stop historians from generally agreeing that it did exist. There is no documentation to support the existence of the sayings gospel Q that preceded the Synoptic gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke), but it is a widely-accepted theory.

The argument still holds that the Templars found something of value and that it was the source of their strange ideas on religion, and that can't be changed whether the source documents are buried under a church, shelved undiscovered in someone's private collection, or were used for fuel.

Lets get back to basics!!!!, Templar "treasure" was referred to i think at De Molay's trial and was hearsay evidence. The Finding of Documents, scrolls etc at the temple is speculative. Remember that the temple was the third (I think) temple and certainly was not King Solomons. The province of judea, Israel/Palestine was a pokey little backwater.The romans and Muslims got there before any Templars. The recording of British Excavations in 19C if correct only highlight the poor archaelogical techniques, and poor interpretation of findings in those days. Go to Knossos and see what was done there in the name of archaeology.
The Templar fleet was a mediteranean fleet. It would have taken a miracle for them to get to Ireland or west coast of Scotland. The Spaniards with much superior ships couldnt control the weather or where they were going 400 years later. From La Rochelle over the bay of biscay would have been extremely risky with a high value cargo.Spain/ Portugal would have been much more logical. Scotland was a remote inhospitable country continually being harassed by the English. Even with Bruce's leadership, it would have been obvious that at some time Scotland would be a vassal state, and within the grasp of the Church
The mystery of the Templars for me is "what did they believe, and hoe did an order (Not founded by the church but adopted by it) seem to have a belief structure that became so alienated from it. What was "Baphomet"?
The confessions of the Templars although obviously taken under torture, have to be assumed to contain the truth, and these have been written about extensively. Different belief structures did coexist in the Churc. St. Francis poverty was not looked on too favourably by the church. perhaps the involvement of another monasticist St Bernard who was very involved with the origination of the Templars is worthy of closer scrutiny.
Of course there is the simple answer. The templars were rich, the french and the pope wanted the money, the Templars had outlived their
purpose, so all sort of charges were brought against them, and ther lands and money confiscated. Later on romantics atarted to invent all sort of theories because we luv a mystery. Loch Ness monster.
Bermuda Triangle.
Incidentally most historians do not acknowledge the existence of the Arc of the Covenant. Most Theolgical students are not in agreement with the concept of an exodus. To believe in the Arc you have to believe in an exodusm Most archaelogical evidence (which is very little) points to the Canaanites changing their belief structure from Polytheism to Monotheism, and the Bible (Which is a Religious book, nor Historical) trying to explain that process .
Sorry that is a different subject.

This is your basics?

"The Finding of Documents, scrolls etc at the temple is speculative." - Of course. History *is* speculative. What's your point?

"Remember that the temple was the third (I think) temple and certainly was not King Solomons." - Once again... what's your point? Solomon's temple would not have contained anything that applied to Christianity, now would it? Herod's temple, on the other hand...

"The province of judea, Israel/Palestine was a pokey little backwater.The romans and Muslims got there before any Templars." - What's your point? The Romans would have been the people the stuff was hidden from, and nobody would have told them about underground vaults, nor would they have had any reason to go looking for any. The Muslims reckoned it a holy site, and would not have defiled it by digging it up.

"The recording of British Excavations in 19C if correct only highlight the poor archaelogical techniques, and poor interpretation of findings in those days. Go to Knossos and see what was done there in the name of archaeology." - What's your point? We're not talking about scholarly reconstruction of the life and times of ancient Jerusalem here. In fact, I would have expected the Templars to take anything they found out of context. The evidence supports this, as they appear to have remained devoutly Christian, but with a distinctly different idea of what that meant.

"The Templar fleet was a mediteranean fleet. It would have taken a miracle for them to get to Ireland or west coast of Scotland. The Spaniards with much superior ships couldnt control the weather or where they were going 400 years later." - You trying to say that any sort of sea trade with Scotland and Ireland prior to steam ships was an impossibility? Red herring. The Templars sailed all over the world, and they hadn't had their masts shot out by two engagements with the British fleet. And they didn't have to go the long way around and face the current that was the ultimate cause of the Spanish fleet's demise. That current would have aided the Templars.

"Spain/ Portugal would have been much more logical. Scotland was a remote inhospitable country continually being harassed by the English. Even with Bruce's leadership, it would have been obvious that at some time Scotland would be a vassal state, and within the grasp of the Church>" - Spain/Portugal are a poorer choice for someone fleeing immediately. It would have been only after they got news of the positions of the Iberian rulers that the Templars would have reconsidered. As for Bruce and his Scots... it's pretty stupid to argue than an outcome was "obvious" when, in the near term, it simply did not happen.

"The mystery of the Templars for me is "what did they believe, and hoe did an order (Not founded by the church but adopted by it) seem to have a belief structure that became so alienated from it. What was "Baphomet"? The confessions of the Templars although obviously taken under torture, have to be assumed to contain the truth, and these have been written about extensively." - Well, there is truth, and there is truth. De Molay testified at the end that most of what he had said was lies to avoid further torture, and that is why he was burned at the stake. Certainly some things were said because it's what the torturers wanted to hear. Some of the weirder things probably had some basis in fact, especially things that cropped up often (although they could have kept cropping up due to torturer prompting). There is good information in the confessions, along with poor information, and telling one from the other is a tricky proposition. The confessions do indicate reverence of a holy object, sometimes thought to be the head of Hugues de Payens, other times Baphomet, other times it's John the Baptist. The confessions do, especially when combined with their strange architecture and symbology, support the theory that their beliefs were very far removed from catholic orthodoxy, including practices similar to a 1st century mystery cult.

"Different belief structures did coexist in the Churc. St. Francis poverty was not looked on too favourably by the church. perhaps the involvement of another monasticist St Bernard who was very involved with the origination of the Templars is worthy of closer scrutiny." - Red herring. You can't compare poverty to elements of a mystery cult. Apples and orangutangs.

"Of course there is the simple answer. The templars were rich, the french and the pope wanted the money, the Templars had outlived their
purpose, so all sort of charges were brought against them, and ther lands and money confiscated." - Phillip wanted their money, and was jealous of their influence in his country. The pope did not originally support the suppression of the Templars, but caved in to pressure by Phillip (as he did often in his career). And since it was motivated by purely secular motives, the fact that their religious oddities were accepted by an orthodoxy notorious for destroying such things remains a glaring contradiction.

And all the rest of your post... red herring, red herring, red herring.

Thank you for the *earlier* posting, Blatherskite. (I see there has been an exchange in the middle.) I think we'll just have to differ, unfortunately. The simpler histories of the Templars (simpler to me, that is), such as the entry in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, and Piers Paul Read's more recent book (2001) make good sense to me.

I take your points about the Ark of the Covenant and the Q texts. I would hope you take my point that Gnosticism was not unknown in the West, so there is no absolute need for the Templars to have found original documents in order to come across them.

But as I don't accept there is a strong case for the Templars having had beliefs or customs derived from Gnosticism, perhaps the above is only indirectly relevant to my own stance - as also the Ark and Q texts, of course.

"Thank you for the *earlier* posting, Blatherskite." - I enjoy a good argument, but there has to be a mutual respect and courtesy to them, and I have this habit of reflecting those properties back at the person with whom I am engaging. This is why you will find a much more considerate tone in my responses to you than to others. You've been an excellent and respected adversary.

"I would hope you take my point that Gnosticism was not unknown in the West, so there is no absolute need for the Templars to have found original documents in order to come across them." - This is where we're still very much at odds. I don't see any reason why the Western world would have known anything about Gnosticism or its contemporaries during the lifespan of the Templar order. When the Western Roman Empire collapsed, civilization collapsed with it, as terrified populaces pledged themselves to feudal lords in exchange for protection in an anarchic and bloody land. Education disappeared, and books were destroyed.

Knowledge of Classical works in science and philosophy became utterly unknown in Europe. In fact, the only reason we have any knowledge of them today is the fact that the works were preserved by the Byzantines, Egyptians, Persians, and other related Arabic/Muslim cultures... plus the Irish Catholics, who, rather than destroying documents or altering them to suit their purposes, as their Roman counterparts were doing, the Irish monks translated classical works faithfully, and made their observations or criticisms in the margins.

By the time order had been fairly restored, the Catholic faith had such a stranglehold on knowledge that very little of Classical work was studied. Aesops fables were widely available, but the works of Aristotle and Plato weren't available in a latin translation until the 13th century. Ancient religious texts were frowned upon as heretical and were simply not available. Even the church didn't study them.

It was against this backdrop of a virtual knowledge vacuum that the Templars emerged. A logical deduction would be that, while in Palestine, someone introduced them to this knowledge... but considering the awful damage the Crusaders wreaked in Jerusalem, there is no reason to expect that someone came forward to offer them instruction. They would have had to discover things for themselves... and their excavation of the Temple provides a perfect explanation for the origin of that discovery.

What you say about the dark ages is true. The ancient civilisation collapsed in western Europe, although some classical works remained influential such as the Confessions of St Augustine. I think the situation was a quite a lot better by 1200-1300 or so. The twelfth century in particular was a period of strong recovery.

I was thinking about all this in a traffic jam (as one does): perhaps you and I are applying Occam's razor in different places. If I understand you right, you are applying it over the whole of the Templars' amazing career, from their sudden rise to their equally sudden end. It does leave questions: the possible whereabouts of any conclusive evidence. And to my mind it actually makes the story more complex, although it has a certain elegance.

My application of Occam's razor is more on the suppression of the Templars. Philip the Fair had sufficient other motives for destroying the order, and we know from other events in his life that he was adept at being very nasty in a legal sort of way. So my view is the charges of magic and the rest were trumped up. And he or his inquisitors could have known enough about these things to put them into the mouths of the tortured monks. This makes the story simpler. On the other hand, a separate reason is then needed for the order's sudden rise.

I have wondered why those who prefer the first option so often bring Rosslyn into it (or Gisors, or another location). If the theory is based totally on intrinsic merit it seems to be a risky step to introduce a hostage like that. My guess is that these places might have been the starting point, and the theory works best backwards; in which case if nothing were found in those places on excavation, the theory should be weakened.

But I suppose a lot of history implies looking backwards, and conclusive evidence for one theory or another is too much to ask for. In the end we take our pick (whoops! No pun intended).

Surely we are missing the obvious. Philip wanted to do the Hospittalers as well but they couldnt atend the party.Did the Hospittalers originate due to some mysterious finding of some mysterious scrolls, or did they originate because there was a surplus of Knights in Europe at the time with no land (Because they were younger brothers etc), and needed an excuse to have a good punch up.
As for red herrings, the biggest red herring is that"Something was discoverd under the Temple",
Who discovered what and what is the evidence, because the whole esoteric study is based on the premise that there is a mystery about their formation and purpose. Are we really to believe that a group of knights discovered some holy relics or scrolls under the remains of a temple that had been destroyed over a thousand years previously, formed a military order with the blessing of the Pope, were destroyed by a French King, but escaped to some small north country and buried those treasures and built a chapel over them.
Give me a break.

"My application of Occam's razor is more on the suppression of the Templars. Philip the Fair had sufficient other motives for destroying the order, and we know from other events in his life that he was adept at being very nasty in a legal sort of way. So my view is the charges of magic and the rest were trumped up. And he or his inquisitors could have known enough about these things to put them into the mouths of the tortured monks." - We agree that the charges were trumped up, and the knights were forced to confess things that did not actually happen. However, there are a few things that still indicate something was going on. One example is the name Baphomet popping up in so many confessions... a name that has no parallel in history. Were the torturers just drawing names at random? It would have helped their case much more to use a known name of the devil. A made-up name doesn't make much sense.

Another indicator is the heavy use of pagan symbology in their architecture. Even if you throw out all of the confessions, their architecture still demands explanation.

"This makes the story simpler. On the other hand, a separate reason is then needed for the order's sudden rise." - It's their rise I am attempting to explain... or, more precisely, their sudden rise and their known peculiarities. My theory does not in any way attempt to explain their downfall, if only because it is not needed for that, other than to provide pretext. The Templars were known for holding secretive worship services, and secrecy breeds speculative gossip.

There are elements in the confessions which do fit in their secretive worship and their pagan symbology, and indicate supreme heresy. Their architecture displays this heresy openly, so it is assumed the church knew something about it. So why are they not persecuted for their beliefs?

The subject is interesting. 'Baphomet' does have parallels, at least in old French where it is the same word as 'Mahomet', which also came up in the trials.

In the early 19th century, as I'm sure you know, the German scholar Hammer-Purgstall came up with his original theory that the word had a Gnostic derivation. I find this far-fetched, given the solution above. Following Mahomet is just the kind of thing the torturers might put into the prisoners' mouths, and the derivation is known.

The 1926 Encyclopedia Britannica demolishes H-P's theory in some style. I don't think the EB could be accused of anti-modernism.

'Baphomet' is much different from 'Mahomet,' and the argument is that it's a corruption doesn't hold up. Why would the Templars ('poor knights of *Christ*') convert to Islam? Why would a church actively combatting Islam suffer them to practice it? Why would they have an idol when Islam strictly forbids it?

Actually, there is a far newer theory that connects Baphomet to Gnosticism. One of the team who worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Hugh Schonfield, applied the Atbash cipher to the word Baphomet. The Atbash cipher was used in many places to decode things in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and also showed up in such places as the Book of Jeremiah. It's a simple cipher... you just lay out the Hebrew alphabet in reverse. You substitute the first letter for the last letter, the next letter for the next-to-last letter, etc.

Using the Atbash cipher, the word 'Baphomet' becomes 'Sophia,' a Greek word meaning 'wisdom,' a word often associated with 1st-century mystery cults, particularly Gnosticism.

This theory has been around since 1984 and a google doesn't reveal any criticism of it. I find it rather compelling that, using this simple cipher, a very clear word emerges. If the theory were nonsense, a nonsense word would have emerged. And this cipher was in use in the first century, as shown by its frequent use in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even if the Templars never managed to decode it and discover its true meaning, their use of this word shows a clear connection to both Gnosticism and 1st-century sources. Like the type one would expect to find buried under Herod's Temple.

And since Gnosticism contains many writings expounding on the teachings of Jesus (my own personal opinion is that Gnosticism was the first Christianity, before Paul bastardized and mass-marketed it), these writings would have had great value to the church, and it indicates why the church would have conferred great wealth upon them and remained unconcerned with any oddities in Templar worship and architectural symbology.

Thank you for that. I agree it's an elegant solution, but I actually find it less persuasive than Hammer-Purgstall's derivation from 'baphe Metous' meaning (in Greek) the baptism of the supreme wisdom. And that has no reliable evidence to support it.

In my opinion theories of this type, are undermined by the more plausible 'mahomet' explanation. I find it persuasive because:
a) 'Baphomet' is in fact a *common* mediaeval corruption of 'Mahomet'. One derivation we have is that fantastic rites therefore became to be called baffumerie, mahomerie, momerie, i.e. mummery.
b) Some knights confessed to following 'Mahomet'. Which proves that 'Baphomet' could easily be a corruption without reference to the objections in your first paragraph above.

Of course I don't believe the Templars followed Mahomet. The charges were trumped up. The knights were suddenly arrested, thrown into dungeons, enchained, starved, terrorized and tortured. They were told the charges to which their leaders had confessed (or said to have done so) and told what to say in order to get off lightly.

In the end we have to take our pick... maybe we just have to agree to differ on the Templars, and on early Christianity as well.

I find the difference between the "baphe metis" theory and the "Sophia" theory to be enormous. One is unsupported conjecture, the other is easily demonstrable fact. The only question remaining is whether the cipher solution is meaningful, or if it's just one of the most amazing coincidences in human history. If the word transcripts to something utterly meaningless like "bath water" or "baby teeth" or "dgsudhgsdgusdf," we wouldn't even be asking this question.

My investigation of the Mahomet connection leaves much to be desired. Most sources attribute the use of the word "Mahomet" to a single confession by a Florentine Templar. Others say it was used "once or twice" during the confessions. As the word "Mahomet" was in common use to mean false gods or false idols, and the inquisitors were specifically asking about a false idol, the oddity is that this word didn't come up far more often.