So this is what it has come to. A NASA spokesman officially denied this week that it is running a child slave colony on Mars after a guest on conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’s Info Wars program made the assertion. The denial made national headlines because Pres. Donald Trump is known to watch, and apparently trust, Jones’s program. On the broadcast, Robert David Steele made the accusation and alleged that global elites use pedophilia as a gateway toward what is essentially vampirism under a pseudoscientific gloss, with their fear hormones used to keep the wealthy forever young. “Pedophilia does not stop with sodomizing children,” Steele told Jones. “It goes straight into terrorizing them to adrenalize their blood and then murdering them. It also includes murdering them so that they can have their bone marrow harvested as well as body parts.” There is no longer any difference between the news and the snake oil filling the fever swamps of the fringe. The only good news is that the mainstream news media and NASA are still treating these claims as stupid and contemptuous, but the fact that they are increasingly making headlines is disturbing. Meanwhile, Ancient Origins published an article by Lucy Wyatt in which the author alleged, without evidence, that the Knights Templar attempted to take control of the ancient city of Harran during the Crusades in order to gain access to the Hermetic wisdom of the Sabians who formerly inhabited it. It is important to reflect at this point on what might have been the genuine mission of the Knights Templar. There is no doubt that St Bernard played a key role in creating the cover story that this select group of religiously inspired crusaders existed to protect the routes to Jerusalem. But given the low numbers of Templars, at least to begin with, this explanation does not make sense. What is more plausible is that they had a presence in the Near East because, after the First Crusade in 1097, St Bernard and others from the Court of Burgundy became aware of occult knowledge contained in a body of writings known as the Corpus Hermeticum considered to be ‘older than Noah’ having been composed by Hermes Trismegistus and therefore of great interest. And one group of people who knew a lot about the Hermetica was the Sabians, who at the time of the Crusades lived in Harran. According to Wyatt, the effort to take Harran was strategically suspect because the city was on the “wrong side” of the Euphrates and offered no benefit in terms of controlling the Holy Land. In this, the writer claims to be following fringe historian Adrian Gilbert’s 1996 book Magi. However, this constellation of claims doesn’t quite hold up to scrutiny. In 1096, the first Crusade commenced and a French noble named Baldwin became the first Count of Edessa, the county which included Harran. As the medieval writer al-Qadi reported, the Harran had long been the home of to a non-Islamic people who escaped conversion to Islam by identifying themselves with the Sabians, a “people of the book” from the Qur’an specifically exempted by Islamic law from conversion. They also identified their god-hero, Hermes Trismegistus, with the Islamic prophet Idris. However, the date when this took place is disputed, with al-Qadi favoring a date of 830 CE, but references to the Sabians of Harran occurring back before 770 CE. In 990, the Numayrids, a Shia Arab tribe, took control of the city, and in 1032, Shiites destroyed the Hermetic temple of Harran and suppressed the Sabian community. While the Byzantine Empire had retaken most of Edessa in the 1030s, Harran remained under Shia control. Anyway, the first Baldwin had become the Count of Edessa and naturally wanted control over the territory he had been assigned, but this lasted only until 1100, when Baldwin was elected King of Jerusalem. He was succeeded by another count named Baldwin, who reigned until 1118. During this period, the county of Edessa was not the backwater that Ancient Origins suggests, but it was in decline relative to its former importance in centuries past. Baldwin II of Edessa wanted to reattached Harran to his crusader state, and he put together a coalition of princelings from surrounding crusader states to accomplish this goal. In 1104, the coalition besieged Harran, which attracted the attention of the Seljuk Turks, who countered the effort and eventually won the Battle of Harran, breaking the power of Edessa. You might notice that cover stories and Knights Templar do not play much of a role in what was a complex effort among many groups to navigate the fault line between Muslim and Christian control in a volatile region. Harran is only on the “wrong” side of the Euphrates if you assume that the only goal of the Crusaders was to control the Holy Land. If you view the strategic map in terms of petty rulers trying to maximize their own territories, it makes perfect sense why a ruler of Edessa would want to annex the next major town over from his border, essentially adding to his territory the province east of the Euphrates. The problem with assuming that the Knights Templar joined the fight because Bernard of Clairvaux wanted to get his hands on the Hermetica is that the Europeans didn’t know anything about the Hermetica at the time. The ancient texts had been lost to the West at the end of Antiquity and were only rediscovered after Byzantine copies were translated in Italy in the Renaissance. Hermes Trismegistus was considered a bit of an unsavory character on account of the fact that he was a pagan and possibly possessed of the evil wisdom of the Fallen Angels, according to European texts. In order for the claim to make any sense, the Templars needed to know about Hermeticism before they went in search of the very Hermetic documents they would need to possess to know about Hermeticism! [Update: As the comments below note, I misread the dates given in the article, and it appears that the author claimed that the Templars learned of the Corpus Hermeticum during the First Crusade, not before, though this still creates the problem that if they had the Corpus from Eastern sources, there is no reason to go invading Harran to look for more since the whole Middle East was lousy with Hermetic literature.] It’s probably also worth noting that the Corpus Hermeticum is the name given to the collection of Greek material as edited and published in the Renaissance. It is not the same as the literature the Sabians would have had access to, since the extant Corpus is only a selection of the much vaster Hermetic literature of Antiquity, and it omits (with the exception of the Emerald Tablet) all of the Arabic Hermetic literature of the Middle Ages. Wyatt writer offers another whopper—that the Sabians were not simply Hermetic Middle Easterners but were instead Egyptians! Indeed, it is possible that the name ‘Sabian’ derives from the ancient Egyptian word for star, sba, and they may have been ancient refugees from Egypt. The Sabians could have been the last remnants of Egyptian priesthood which mostly disappeared from Egypt in the 4th century when Romano-Christians destroyed what was left of Egyptian temples. While it is true that the Arabs said that the Sabians made pilgrimages to Giza to make sacrifices at the alleged tomb of Hermes Trismegistus, there is no evidence whatsoever of an Egyptian priesthood in Harran, a city that had its own religious traditions for thousands of years. Wyatt never did return to the idea of the Knights Templar in Harran, and she did not bother to try to make an actual argument for why we should assume that they participated in to find esoteric wisdom in Harran. The actual warrant for the claim appears to be Masonic lore, where the allegation that the Templars learned of Masonry from “Syrian Christians,” allegedly descendants of the Essenes, has led many fringe writers to swap in Sabians for Syrian Christians. One old version of the story came from the Archdeacon Walter B. Mant back in 1830: These knights were all Freemasons; from some of the Syrian Christians, who had yet retained the mysteries of the Craft, they received their initiation, and no one was admitted into the Templar’s society before he had been prepared by reception into the three degrees of Masonry. […] These were the men who, returning from the Holy Land, brought with them the true principles of Freemasonry, and patronising the operative branch also, re-established the Order on its true basis. Modern writers are merely attempting to make old stories seem more scientific by layering historical facts atop stories developed as legends and myths.
78 Comments
Only Me
7/1/2017 12:25:28 pm
Only a mental degenerate would be so obsessed with pedophilia that increasingly stupid and vulgar claims, like Steele's, would receive such attention. I'm forced to conclude Steele and his ilk are seriously fucked up.
Reply
TONY S.
7/1/2017 01:58:51 pm
Lord save us from Scott Wolter being given any new material for his Templar delusions!
Reply
BigNick
7/1/2017 11:12:12 pm
Scott Wolter should be given as much material as possible. The man is a comic genius. He's like Indiana Jones meets Don Quixote meets the Coen brothers.
Jim
7/2/2017 03:26:28 pm
Well at least we now know why Wolter doesn't like peer review. It would appear that "peer review" is just people purposely demonstrating his errors and playing "gotcha" !!
Americanegro
7/3/2017 03:07:47 am
"NOW" we know??? That said, it's a point that bears making over and over. Never forget. That giving Minnesotans, football players, gin drinkers, dive buddies, closeted homosexuals, geologists, and fringe theorists a bad name em-effer!!!
Americanegro
7/5/2017 01:40:17 am
Speak harshly to your little boy, and beat him when he sneezes.
An Over-Educated Grunt
7/1/2017 01:11:24 pm
The number of knights in the order was fairly small, but assuming a fairly normal mesny of ten men at arms or archers per knight, even the half-dozen founding Templars would have had fifty-plus men at hand; the order's first statutes clearly address this, specifying equipment and horses for sergeants as well as knights. That's a much more reasonable size for a constabulary, and it grew from there. This idea that there were too few knights relies on the knights being the only ones under arms.
Reply
TONY S.
7/1/2017 01:57:47 pm
One of the things that surprised me when first reading about the Knights Templar, or knights in general during this period, was how large the retinue of each individual knight was.
Reply
Steve StC
7/1/2017 11:32:55 pm
Gosh! You guys seem like you're reading something other than the crumbs from...well, you know the rest.
Steve StC
7/1/2017 11:43:59 pm
2780 miles. from Reimes, France to Jerusalem. 20 men per knight. 1 mile between them. It simply doesn’t add up. And this is why so many people don't buy the BS that they were there to protect the way to the Holy Land, but rather something larger.
BigNick
7/2/2017 12:01:45 am
Having a stated goal and having the resources to do it are two different things.
Americanegro
7/2/2017 02:06:50 pm
They weren't guarding the roads in Europe and that was never the purpose you enormous dummy. They were establishing a military presence in Boogaboogaland.
An Over-Educated Grunt
7/3/2017 12:41:46 am
I'm sorry, Steve, I know you said you were leaving, so I'm forced to assume that all your posts since are an illusion. I refuse to interact with figments.
Americanegro
7/1/2017 01:23:35 pm
Of course Jason's alter ego Only Me is first!
Reply
Americanegro
7/1/2017 01:36:24 pm
Sorry for the premature submission.
Reply
TONY S.
7/1/2017 01:55:57 pm
Excellent points. One of the things that has always fascinated me about the East during that time period is its preservation of ancient knowledge while the Dark Age was engulfing Europe. 7/1/2017 02:19:26 pm
The problem, of course, is that if they encountered the Corpus Hermeticum among the Byzantines, what exactly did they need Harran for? The Harranian Sabians had been suppressed, their wisdom scattered, and the Hermetic texts spread among the enemy Muslims. No matter how you slice it, it doesn't make sense.
Americanegro
7/1/2017 02:45:17 pm
Again, you're not following, and therefore not refuting, the story as presented. No one said "among the Byzantines". You're putting words in someone else's mouth then arguing against those words.
TONY S.
7/1/2017 02:52:19 pm
I think you mean long before Baldwin I and Baldwin II
TONY S.
7/1/2017 02:57:45 pm
Leave it to an Ancient Origins author to get critical dates wrong. "After the First Crusade" would have been late 1099 early 1100, not 1097.
Americanegro
7/1/2017 04:05:17 pm
Dammit! Tony S. is right. Apologies for the last post Jason, but not for the rest. The idea that a suppressed culture simply disappears is overly something -istic.
Mr. Pyramid
7/1/2017 05:39:40 pm
True, but the suppression of the Sabians was merely a byproduct of political turmoil in the region around Harran in the 11th century, and that turmoil probably eliminated them as a religious community by the time of the First Crusade. One account says that the Sabians' last temple was turned into a fortress in the events of 1031, while another implies that the Sabians had a holy site that was destroyed in the early 1080s. There is no sign that the Sabians existed later than that. Whether one tries to reconcile these accounts or disbelieve one of them, the general impression they leave is of a dying community. According to Kevin Van Bladel in The Arabic Hermes:
Americanegro
7/2/2017 12:34:21 pm
Much like the situation with the Confederacy in the U.S. That culture was completely lost after being suppressed, right?
Mr. Pyramid
7/2/2017 03:28:53 pm
If the Confederacy were a minority group in a midsized town the two might be comparable. You are simply being snide for the sake of being snide, not considering the absurdity of your own analogy.
Americanegro
7/2/2017 04:04:49 pm
The water on your brain must be keeping you mighty cool today.
Mr. Pyramid
7/2/2017 06:59:49 pm
The fundamental book on this subject is The Arabic Hermes by Kevin Van Bladel, which I just cited above. Read it before you open your mouth again.
Americanegro
7/2/2017 11:14:26 pm
"he Harranian community of pagans claimed to be Sabians during the caliphate of Mamun so as to avoid persecution for their paganism, and to support that claim they declared their Hermetic texts as their sacred book and Hermes Trismegistus as their prophet."
Mr. Pyramid
7/2/2017 11:48:57 pm
I will give you the full quotation, then.
Americanegro
7/3/2017 12:25:50 am
So in short you know nothing and the author of the book knows nothing.
Mr. Pyramid
7/8/2017 03:28:24 am
Wrong. There is no direct evidence about what the term "Sabian" meant to Muhammad, but we do have evidence about the last years of the two Sabian communities, although not as much as one would like.
TONY S.
7/1/2017 01:51:52 pm
Baldwin II was the first cousin of Godfroi de Boullion and his brother Baldwin I, who relinquished his position as Prince of Edessa to become the first king of Jerusalem.
Reply
Klaus
7/2/2017 04:13:22 am
Chapeau @ Tony
Reply
bear47
7/4/2017 11:52:02 am
Tony S.,
Reply
TONY S.
7/4/2017 03:05:01 pm
Thanks Bear47, always a pleasure to meet a kindred spirit who holds history in the same regard as I do. We have a good group of regulars here who share our view, I'm glad to say. 7/4/2017 12:02:42 pm
I have removed posts in this thread from "Steve StC" at the request of the actual Steve St Clair, who said that the posts were not by him.
Reply
TONY S.
7/4/2017 03:50:41 pm
Oh I'm sure they weren't. ;)
Americanegro
7/5/2017 12:34:36 am
Not up to his usual standard of batshit crazy?
Americanegro
7/6/2017 04:54:46 pm
Funny that he would check in the day or the day after the day someone impersonates him. Occam's Razor suggests he was drunkposting.
An Over-Educated Grunt
7/6/2017 10:29:12 pm
Feels like now is the time to start listing things Steve St. Clair hasn't posted.
David Bradbury
7/2/2017 05:52:49 am
I'm puzzled by the alleged involvement of Bernard of Clairvaux. At the time of the foundation of the Templars, he was establishing daughter houses and formally creating a new monastic order by gaining Papal approval for the "Charter of Charity" (23 Dec 1119). This provoked enmity from the Benedictine order, and if it had become known that Bernard was simultaneously investigating pagan mystical literature, they would have used it against him.
Reply
Americanegro
7/2/2017 12:47:31 pm
Perhaps that explains why he didn't tell them.
Reply
David Bradbury
7/2/2017 01:30:14 pm
Perhaps. With hindsight, is there significant evidence of a growth of subtle Hermetic influence in Bernard's later writings, or in the writings of others within the Cistercian order over the next century or so?
Americanegro
7/2/2017 02:10:53 pm
Sounds like a nice research project. Why don't you get right on it because I don't care at all.
David Bradbury
7/2/2017 02:49:56 pm
I'm much more of a "real history" person myself, but if I were trying to connect the early Templars and St. Bernard with the supposed heart of Middle Eastern Hermetic culture, I'd turn the suppositions completely on their head:
Americanegro
7/2/2017 03:01:54 pm
Sounds like a nice research project. Why don't you get right on it because I don't care at all.
David Bradbury
7/2/2017 04:48:09 pm
There is of course a catch to my above theory. If there had been relevant Vatican documents from the 12th century, including translated results of the supposed Harran fishing trip, they would probably be available to scholars by now. The lack of such documents suggests that, if the Templars did try to get such information from Harran, they found nothing of value there, because adherents of the cult had long ago left for steady employment in places like Baghdad.
Americanegro
7/3/2017 12:30:19 am
I'm picturing you in a smoking jacket and perhaps a pipe, devoting your life to two pursuits, wowing the boozy dowagers with your pseudo-erudition at cocktail parties, and fleeing at the first hint of messy lab or research work.
Jane Smith
7/3/2017 12:42:04 pm
Bernard was born in 1090. The Cistercians were founded in 1098 by Robert of Molemse. Stephen Harding wrote the Charter of Charity which was completed probably by 1112. Bernard joined the order in 1113 and built the daughter house in Citeaux. The Templars were formed about 1118-1119 at the request of King Baldwin II. They had already taken Augustinian vows from the Patriarch of Jerusalem at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, thus they became the first warrior/monks. Bernard wrote the first Latin Rule for the Templars at the Council of Troyes in 1128, at the request of King Baldwin. Bernard was relunctant to go, as he was ill at the time. I would like to add to the growing bibliography (most of which I've read) books by the French medievalist, Regine Pernoud.
Reply
David Bradbury
7/3/2017 04:34:45 pm
"The Templars were formed about 1118-1119 at the request of King Baldwin II. They had already taken Augustinian vows from the Patriarch of Jerusalem"
Americanegro
7/3/2017 06:00:01 pm
Another case of your laziness. Simply can't wait to slither into the smoking jacket. There are boozy dowagers to dazzle with your erudition (and distaste for actual research).
David Bradbury
7/4/2017 03:14:07 am
The source is (for practical purposes) the first edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, now over a century old. Its narrative is not in line with modern scholarship.
Jane Smith
7/3/2017 06:28:04 pm
Hugh de Payen and his companions made a bee-line for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher when they arrived in Jerusalem, as did most pilgrims and crusaders. They took Augustinian vows and planned on staying at the Church. However, Baldwin, recognising their bravery, told them he need policemen, not more monks, and talked them into becoming what was essentially a police force. He gave them the Al Aqsa mosque for their home and headquarters, on the Temple Mount. Baldwin himself lived in the Tower of David, also on the mount. So, you see, they were already Augustinians before they became Templars. This was very unusual, as normally belonging to more than one Order is not allowed, but these were unusual times.
Reply
TONY S.
7/3/2017 06:51:21 pm
Baldwin II did not ask them to do anything. By every account, including that of William of Tyre, it was the exact reverse. The nine founding members of the order presented themselves to the king.
Reply
Americanegro
7/3/2017 07:53:57 pm
In the sense that Scott Wolter has connections to the Cistercians? Meeting and taking vows are two different things. I served Sissy Spacek a ham salad once but I wasn't in Carrie.
Jane Smith
7/3/2017 09:22:50 pm
Try Barber's THE NEW KNIGHTHOOD page 7. I won't quote it in its entirety, but here goes, "...though the implication is that at first they intended simply to adopt a penitential way of life ..later a more active role was suggested to them. Michael the Syrian says that it was the king...who persuaded Hugh of Payens and thirty companions 'to serve in the knighthood...rather than becoming a monk...' ". I admit I'm not an historian. I just love medieval history and alway have my nose in a book.
David Bradbury
7/4/2017 03:39:20 am
The English translation of the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian merely places the foundation "in that period, when Baldwin was the second king of Jerusalem" (which itself is, I think, a slight mistranslation, but the point is that it refers merely to a period which began in 1118, not specifically to the year 1118). Also, its narrative is imperfect, so we'll need Americanegro to do some research on other versions of Michael's text.
David Bradbury
7/4/2017 03:41:54 am
Sorry, forgot the link:
jane smith
7/4/2017 11:07:30 am
Also, from THE RULE OF THE TEMPLARS by Upton-Ward, p. 1, "They took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience before the Patriarch of Jerusalem and were attached to the regular canons of the Holy Sepulchre who lived by the rule of St. Augustine."
David Bradbury
7/4/2017 12:20:09 pm
The English translation of Michael is from an Armenian version, and the French translation of the original Syriac text, under the title of "Chronique de Michel le Syrien" (Book 15, chapter 11, in vol. 3, page 201) has a significantly different account of the founding of the "Frankish brothers" (my translation from the French):
TONY S.
7/4/2017 03:53:42 pm
Americanegro,
David Bradbury
7/5/2017 08:47:23 am
PS: Checking all the above against William of Tyre's summary of the origins of the Templars, it becomes apparent that he was a victim of his own chronological calculations. He specifically states that the Council of Troyes, where the Latin Rule was approved, was "post eorum institutionem ... anno nono" (the 9th year after their founding- as specified in the text of the Rule itself), but also that Hugues de Payens and his companions pledged themselves to the Patriarch of Jerusalem in the same year Warmund entered that office. The latter would be 1118, but the former was not when he thought it was.
David Bradbury
7/5/2017 08:49:26 am
PPPS: William of Tyre does not say there were nine volunteers at the start, only that there were nine by the time of the Council of Troyes and their numbers grew rapidly thereafter.
Titus pullo
7/3/2017 08:03:12 pm
Unfortunately pedaophilia wasnt just occuring aming the lower classes but an accepted practice among the elites as an organized practice. Great examples are the upper class british public sector elites who often took trips to italy to procure young boys. Thesr perversions were common among such political elites as john maynard keynes. These stories based on factual evidence is often used by crazies like alex jones followers. Yes that guy has left his senses but history is filled with well connected politcal elites who have abused children. Giving rise to all sorts of wacky theories. Abuse of children by priests or political elites or an uncle or family friend cannot be covered up no matter how powerful the abuser is.
Reply
Americanegro
7/4/2017 01:39:03 am
Hmm. Tony S. is a fan of Alexander the Great, who travelled with a thirteen year old catamite.
Reply
TONY S.
7/4/2017 02:10:38 pm
Hey, even Alexander wasn't perfect. ;)
Kal
7/4/2017 11:58:05 am
All of this Templar stuff would matter if it weren't a legend post mortum of their cause, after the King of France had the leaders all killed, and the followers scattered. It is no more real after that than King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Fun to speculate, but hardly something to go to commenting war over.
Reply
Americanegro
7/4/2017 07:13:28 pm
Hmm, Johnny Can't Cope checking in. "It is no more real after that than King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table." Yeah, remember all those contemporaneous records of King Arthur? JUST LIKE THAT.
Reply
V
7/5/2017 01:02:43 am
1. There ARE no "contemporaneous records of King Arthur," for the simple fact that historians can't even pin down precisely WHEN he was supposed to have lived, and even if there were records of a king named Arthur, the Arthur of Camelot is as fictional as Hollywood's Robin Hood.
Americanegro
7/5/2017 01:49:56 am
Being a retard is no way to go through life, son, but the world needs ditch-diggers too.
Jane Smith
7/5/2017 12:25:32 pm
David, to make things more complicated, they would have been using the Julian calendar. You are correct that the regular canons were not, strictly speaking, monks, as they weren't cloistered. The definition of canons is broad and the line between them and monks is slim. In general, Augustinian canons regular were considered clerics, living in a monastery according to the Rule of St. Augustine; i.e. they chanted the Divine Office, etc. Erasmus considered them somewhere between monks and clergy. It's easy to see how they were thought of as monks, as they lived the life of vowed religious. (1913 Catholic Encyclopedia)
Reply
David Bradbury
7/5/2017 12:47:24 pm
I'd argue that in the 12th century, using the Julian calendar made things _less_ complicated, because its astronomical inaccuracy had not built up so much that anybody felt the need to correct it !
Reply
Jane Smith
7/5/2017 12:59:38 pm
I meant complicated for us, trying to figure out exact dates.
David Bradbury
7/5/2017 02:09:12 pm
Depends on how they chose to express the precise date, I guess. If they used kalends and suchlike, it's a straightforward table lookup, but what sometimes gets me is when they give a date as the feast-day of a particular saint, and it turns out there are multiple saints with the same name so you have to figure out which one the writer was most likely to be thinking of.
Kal
7/5/2017 02:33:06 pm
King Arthur is a legend, loosely based on long dead kings, so are Templars, but Templars were based on a real group that also died.
Reply
Americanegro
7/5/2017 11:09:22 pm
Asspie says what?
Reply
Americanegro
7/6/2017 07:14:35 pm
You are aware that you're posting as both V and Kal, right? And that you're mentally ill, right?
Reply
Kal
7/6/2017 01:54:10 am
King Arthur is a legend, loosely based on long dead kings, so are Templars, but Templars were based on a real group that also died.
Reply
James Covalito
7/14/2017 02:15:48 pm
Watch out, Trump may crawl out from under your bed and get you when you're not expecting it!
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
December 2024
|