Scott Wolter Strikes Again: Weird Claims About Jesus, Templars, and Mystery Cults

7/8/2013

The Providence Journal ran an article July 6 discussing the controversy over the Narragansett Rune Stone (NRS), a rune-covered rock that had been located for many years off the coast of Rhode Island before vanishing last year. It was the subject on an episode of America Unearthed. The rock was recently recovered, and now it is undergoing testing to determine the age of its carvings, which include the variant-A rune in the shape of an X with a little bar perpendicular to the upper right stave that forensic geologist Scott Wolter has termed “The Hooked X®” and registered as an official trademark.

The article contains very little new information about the NRS except for the strong insinuation that local property owner and billionaire Heritage Foundation founder Timothy Mellon, a scion of the wealthy Mellon family, stole the stone because he mistakenly believed Rhode Island granted property owners rights to the rocks in the waters adjacent to their property. The article, of course, does not explicitly state Mellon was responsible, though it is the clear implication. While the stone was legally state property, there is no law criminalizing the removal of stones not protected as monuments or historical sites from state property, so charges are unlikely.

Obviously, as a wealthy conservative, Mellon is clearly in on the conspiracy to suppress the truth about the sacred feminine in America.

What interests me, however, is how staff writer Richard C. Dujardin depicted Scott Wolter:

Though Wolter has come under fire from critics who see his theories as over the edge, he is considered an expert by many on the subject of runestones, having produced documentaries for the History Channel and written two books.

This is what I’ve tried to say about the legitimizing power of television; the very fact that Wolter has a TV show (on H2, actually) gives him prima facie credibility that outweighs even the most serious of criticisms in the court of public opinion. On the plus side, by The Providence Journal standards, I’m an expert on UFOs, pyramids, aliens, and world mythology.

The legitimizing power of television then lets Wolter say things like the following, about the alleged marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, their imaginary offspring, and the Knights Templar’s knowledge of the same—all more or less without challenge:

Wolter says there is little doubt that the Knights Templar, facing suppression by church authorities, would have wanted to escape — even if it meant traveling across an unchartered ocean.

“I’m not trying to offend anybody. I’m just trying to get to the truth of real life. I believe Jesus is a real historical person, a power person, who was teaching the ancient mysteries, and as such he was a threat to the Romans,” Wolter said in a recent interview.

Where does one even begin unpacking all the wrongness in this brief passage?

Wolter might have “little doubt,” but there is no evidence to support his assertion, especially since we know where many of the Knights Templar ended up after the suppression of the order, including the Knights of St. John (the Hospitallers)—by papal decree no less!—and the Knights of Christ in Portugal and Order of Montessa in Spain. Given that outside the immediate leadership of the order and outside of France, there were virtually no convictions of Templar members, there just isn’t much room for an imaginary flight from Europe by ship.

The claim rests on two foundations. The first is that several thousand Templars in France who must have existed cannot be easily accounted for. Many historians believe that they fled to Switzerland, which experienced a sudden florescence of military prowess that cannot easily be explained without an influx of Templars. (Funny how that medieval mystery fails to interest conspiracy theorists.) The second foundation is a single Latin line from “Frater Iohannis de civitate Cathalanensi” (Jean de Châlons), a Templar serving brother, as preserved in the summary of his testimony under interrogation during the Templar dissolution:

Item dixit, quod potentes ordinis prescientes istam confusionem fugiunt et ipse obviavit fratri Girardo de Villariis ducenti quinquaginta equos, et audivit dici, quod intravit mare cum XVIII galeis, et frater Hugo de Cabilone fugiit cum tot thesauro fratris Hugonis de Peraudo. Interrogatus, quomodo potuit tandiu istud factum teneri secretum, respondit, quod nullus pro aliqua re erat ausus revelare, nisi papa et rex aperuissent viam, quia, si sciretur in ordine, quod aliquis loqueretur, statim fuisset mortuus.

Then he said that, learning beforehand about this trouble, the leaders of the Order have fled, and he himself met Brother Gerard de Villiers leading fifty horses, and he heard it said that he had set out to sea with eighteen galleys, and Brother Hugues de Châlons fled with the whole treasury of Brother Hugues de Pairaud. When asked how he was able to keep this fact secret for so long, he responded that no one would have dared reveal it for anything, unless the Pope and the King had opened the way, for if it were known in the Order that anyone had spoken, he would at once be killed. (my translation)

It’s funny that very few books about the Templar “mysteries” quote this. Note carefully that the transcript clearly delineates the claim about the eighteen galleys as secondhand hearsay. Jean de Châlons did not witness the galleys, nor even hear of them from Gerard de Villiers himself; he claimed it secondhand or farther removed from mere rumor. And we are getting it at yet another remove from the records of his interrogation.

Jean de Châlons, however, made up many other claims of even more ridiculous provenance, and his assertion of eighteen galleys flies in the face of the facts, which record that the order with the greatest naval presence—the Hospitallers—had but four galleys to their name at the same time. This single line—the sole source for Scott Wolter’s imaginary voyage of the Templars—is simply a wild rumor repeated under duress while on trial for his life. The entire myth of the Templar flight to America rests on this single reference in the testimony of a man being tortured for information, whose other claims were later proved false.

Well, that’s still a little better than Wolter’s claims about Jesus. How, exactly, would teaching “the ancient mysteries” be a “threat” to the Romans? As laid out in the Gospels—which are of questionable historical value to begin with—the Romans killed Jesus because he was causing disruptions among the Jewish subject populations of Judaea. The Romans, and I’m not sure I can make this clear enough, absolutely LOVED the Mysteries. Not only could they not get enough of them, they actively went looking for more Mysteries to import to Rome, including the Mysteries of (alphabetically) Attis, Cybele, Dionysus, Isis, Mithras, Orpheus, Sabazius, and Serapis—just for starters. Outside of Rome, there were special Mysteries so sacred they could only be performed in their cult centers, including the Samothracian Mysteries and, of course, above all the Eleusinian Mysteries. Several Roman emperors traveled to Eleusis to be initiated into the Mysteries, right down to Julian the Apostate. In the relevant period, right before Jesus, Sulla, Cicero, Marc Antony, and quite possibly Julius Caesar all entered the Eleusinian Mysteries. The emperor at Jesus’ birth, Augustus, was also an initiate, having entered the Mysteries to celebrate his defeat of Antony. In fact, the early emperors considered entry into the Mysteries to be a shortcut to becoming a god since the cleansing of the Mysteries and the subsequent grant of eternal life paved the way for senatorial ratification of their divinity.

This is not the behavior of people who hated the Mysteries or were threatened by them.

What the Romans didn’t like was individuals who threatened the authority of the state or who refused to accept the suzerainty of the Roman gods. But that isn’t Scott Wolter’s claim, so it’s not relevant to our inquiry today.

In short, Scott Wolter knows not whereof he speaks. As Wittgenstein said, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

81 Comments

Conor

7/8/2013 12:37:51 pm

I'm curious as to why you think the Gospels are of "questionable" historical value. The documents as a whole? Or particular parts?

Certainly, the same historical criticism should be applied to them as with any other ancient document, but my understanding is that the vast majority of scholars do believe the Synoptic Gospels (John is another story), while certainly written from different viewpoints with different "motives", contain a fair amount of historicity.

Jason Colavito link

7/8/2013 01:04:42 pm

I said the synoptic gospels were of questionable historical value because they contain a great deal of material that cannot be proved true, which in turn calls into question other assertions. The birth narrative is of course the most famous example, though also the infancy and resurrection narratives. While historians generally credit the overall depiction of Jesus' adulthood and his teachings, any one specific incident or claim has generated mountains of paper arguing for or against its authenticity.

Christopher Randolph

7/8/2013 04:30:02 pm

"that the vast majority of scholars"

You mean the vast majority of Christian theologian scholars? Surely most of the world's scholars in general don't believe them to have 'a fair amount of historicity.'

In any event for me the kicker is that the Gospels contain a number of stories and plot devices which show up in Roman fiction (!) and in the mystery cults BEFORE 1 AD. Believing the Gospels' tales of Jesus' life would be a bit like believing that Sherlock Holmes and the Fresh Prince of Bel Air defeated Hitler and Nixon at Waterloo (a claim which also has a fair amount of historicity).

7/9/2013 02:49:15 am

No, when I say the vast majority of scholars, I mean credentialed Christian AND secular historians. This tired argument that there is some cadre of historians who disbelieve the existence of the historical Jesus of Nazareth is really getting old. Just saying something is true does not make it true.

By "a fair amount of historicity," I mean that the Gospels contain a slew of cultural, geographical, biographical references that have been affirmed by the modern science of archaeology. My fault for making my language sound like I was hedging. On the whole, the Gospels certainly pass Mr. Colavito's requirement for multiple lines of evidence confirming their value as historical documents.

Does any of this mean that Jesus is the son of God? No, certainly not, that isn't what I'm trying to imply, and not a discussion I care to have in a blog comment section.

7/9/2013 03:24:33 am

" the Gospels contain a slew of cultural, geographical, biographical references"

So do the Sherlock Holmes stories. That doesn't prove Sherlock Holmes existed. That the French Revolution occurred in reality does not mean that the characters in A Tale of Two Cities were real people. I'm always amazed that believers seem not to have any conception (or pretend not to have any) that works of fiction are often set in actual events. Perhaps this is what comes of being people keen on one book.

7/9/2013 03:43:12 am

You are incorrectly applying your modern view/standard of literature to something that was written two millenia ago. The genre of prose fiction (a la Sherlock Holmes and A Tale of Two Cities) simply didn't exist. As Geoff already suggested below, the Gospels have to be evaluated in the context of other historical works of the time.

7/9/2013 03:45:18 am

There were fictional stories written at the time. Lucian's "True History" (presented as a "historical" account of a Greek voyage to the moon) is just one example.

7/9/2013 03:58:41 am

Your point is taken, though Lucian wrote this a century or more after the Gospels, depending on when you date them. To quote from Lucian's introduction to 'True History' (or 'True Story'): "My subject is, then, what I have neither seen, experienced, nor been told, what neither exists nor could conceivably do so. I humbly solicit my readers' incredulity." Lucian is not trying to pass this off as real.

Compare this to the opening chapter of Luke (1:3): "...since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.' We're dealing with two very different types of literature here.

7/9/2013 04:07:47 am

No Callirhoe? No Satyricon? I also find it funny that you needed to write that there was no 'prose fiction' when it so happens that there were reams upon reams of epic fictional poems, as well as fictionalized legendary 'histories' of actual figures with gross exaggeration and folk additions, from which a good many NT stories are clearly drawn.

Why it would matter if stories of the supposed Jesus found their way into oral tradition from prose or from an epic poem? If you were worshiping the Man from Nantucket he wouldn't be more real because he wasn't novelized.

7/9/2013 04:11:28 am

"Chariton of Aphrodisias was the author of an ancient Greek novel probably titled Callirhoe... Recent evidence of fragments of the text on papyri suggests that the novel may have been written in the mid 1st century AD, making it the oldest surviving complete ancient prose romance..."

Note that's the first surviving, complete one, and not the only one.

Geoff Gummer link

7/8/2013 12:38:03 pm

FWIW, technically, Jesus was killed by his own people, because they were afraid his rebellious talks would usurp their power and control through the temple. They merely used the Roman system to do it, because they were not allowed to do it themselves.

7/8/2013 01:05:27 pm

You're right. I should have said "The Romans, at the behest of the Jewish leadership..."

7/8/2013 01:34:13 pm

Yep, the point of Pilate washing his hands is that he considered Jesus innocent of any crime against Rome, but to appease the jewish leadership he did what they wanted.

Also, as someone who spends a lot of time researching documents, surely you are aware that as an ancient historical document, the gospels are right up there, if not superior to other documents of their time? At least, they follow the format of other ancient records of history from the first century, contain verifiable information, and unlike just about any other document we have - we have a couple of thousand years of investigation and preservation of the texts - we know virtually everything about it, warts and all.

7/8/2013 01:47:01 pm

I am aware of it; but I don't give much credence to Cassius Dio's accounts of various prodigies and miracles either. My point was only that--as you note--it requires verification from multiple lines of evidence to say that what is reported in an ancient text actually happened the way they said it did.

7/8/2013 03:21:42 pm

Fortunately there are plenty (subjective term) of other histories, autobiographies, etc which give us an idea of what the ANE people considered important in a historical record. Just as people 2000 years from now will be able to look at our books and say "so that's how they did it..". We have text books on letter writing and so forth from the day too, so we can be reasonably sure what they were communicating, how and why. There's plenty of secular and non secular literature on the subject. Dissenters are few and far between these days.

Gary

7/8/2013 03:59:52 pm

Are there any examples of Rome executing a person at the "behest" of the Jews outside of the Gospels? My understanding is that Pilate washing his hands was more of a political nod to the Romans who were very much still in power and were known to execute anyone who contested their authority such as claiming to be a king.

7/8/2013 04:32:40 pm

"the point of Pilate washing his hands is that he considered Jesus innocent of any crime against Rome, but to appease the jewish leadership he did what they wanted."

An early trope of alternative history which has not worked out particularly well for Jews in more recent centuries.

7/8/2013 04:38:24 pm

Gary,

Not sure about other examples, but that's not specifically to what I was referring. The washing of hands was symbolic, saying "this is on you, not me". Pilate used the excuse that Jesus claimed to be a king - as per the trials. But as Jesus said, "you said it, I didnt" (to paraphrase). The real issue was his attacks on the temple and its authority (and power and money).

Mr Randolph - Secular and Christian scholars do, and as I said, the number of scholars (in the appropriate fields, excluding the likes of Dawkins and so forth), who concur as to their historicity far exceeds the opposite. I've seen many quotes from secular literary scholars and historians who say that disbelief in the historicity of the gospels is plain ludicrous. But they must be understood in the context of other historical writings of the day (by that I mean records of history, not "ancient writings")

7/8/2013 07:07:30 pm

Mr. Gummer -

No, sorry, not buying it. We have plenty of examples of both contemporary non-fiction and fiction from the 1st century AD and earlier which managed to tell a tale once in fairly straightforward terms without a litany of direct contradictions. This isn't a question of textual style, it's a question of folk tales (or even written fiction which entered oral tradition as true stories) being written down in different decades following revised or concocted dating of said tales.

As far as literature preceding Jesus with the stories of Jesus already laid out, check out the hour-long lecture here by biblical scholar and former believer Robert M Price:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzOrc_kwcU4

As far as what 'most' of anyone thinks, again I remind you that believing Christians or for that matter westerners of any stripe are not representative of most people. This happens to be from a devout Jewish site dedicated to countering Christian missionary tropes, and should give pause to anyone claiming what 'most' of any category pf people think about the historicity of the Gospels:

"In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism, Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris. Most Hindus do not believe in Jesus, but those who do consider him to be one of the many avatars of the Hindu god Vishnu. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus but they reject the New Testament story and consider him to be a prophet who announced the coming of Muhammed. They explicitly deny that he was ever crucified."

A banner moment in the otherwise mediocre Bill Maher religion film was the American Catholic priest interviewed at the Vatican itself declaring that the Gospels were 'just stories' and not to be understood literally. While not typical necessarily of most priests it does drive home the point that the historical Jesus side of things is a small and shrinking % of the world's population, despite the best attempts of the Duggars' overworked genitals.

7/8/2013 07:08:05 pm

7/8/2013 08:41:19 pm

You know, Mr Randolph, that anyone can pull out random "dissenters" - these people are the Scott Wolters of biblical studies (although probably more highly qualified). Fact is, their objections and arguments have been more than adequately dealt with by greater minds than mine.. I can find some for you if you dont wish to google it for yourself. Its something like people taking Dawkins as a serious philosopher because he makes some outlandish claims about the existence of God in a few books.. in fact, the very thing that the good Mr C has mentioned in this passage.

If there has been an objection to the historicity of the gospels, it has been answered - but it is a huge field of study and I could hardly do it justification here. I can refer you to 2 friends of mine who could answer/have answered most of these issues (they have PHD's in philosophy/theology where I am a mere bachelor). Or feel free to email me at geoff at theology dot geek dot nz and I will give you the best answers I can.
However, I should point out that from experience, you're going to ask qustions that you think are devastating to me/bible/christianity. I'm going to answer them for a bit, then get sick of it and start referring you to literature to read for yourself, because I've done this a thousand times and its always the same thing.
However, without trying to sound arrogant (and trust me, I recognise I do not have all the answers), should you come up with something truly awesome that confounds me.. I will pass it on to one and all and see if it confounds them.. and should it do that - we'll buy you a bottle of whiskey to celebrate.

7/9/2013 01:58:59 am

No one's talking about Dawkins nor about anything other than what was typed.

Price has dual degrees in theology and NT studies and is an ordained Protestant minister. It was a great familiarity with the Bible and with biblical studies which led him to doubt the historicity of Jesus.

What I sent you was about 50 minutes of him reading story after story after story from 1st century and earlier literature of incidents we know from the NT which were in fact common plot devices from Roman and Greek lit and from regional folk tales. Either you've not watched that or you have no answer for it. I don't expect to change the minds of believers but you all should be owning the fact that you have beliefs and not a fact-supported chain of logic.

Geoff Gummer

7/10/2013 08:55:05 am

Mr Randolph,

Part of "introduction to biblical studies" is looking at biblical literature and comparing it to contemporary literature. Looking at the similarities and the differences. Hardly rocket surgery. As I said, He's been dealt with countless times by minds greater than mine, and he has been relegated to the "scott Wolter school of theology".. ok?

7/10/2013 03:44:40 pm

Geoff,
You seem to have entirely missed my point. You are retelling the story in the gospels as if they are a history book. But scholars doubt that part because if flies against what is known of Roman policies and Pilate himself.

7/10/2013 04:39:30 pm

Gary,

The gospels are considered history books, fairly much by most people inside and and out of biblical scholarship. There are a few crackpots, as I said.

If I understand you correctly, first you said that Pilate washed his hands as a nod to the Romans, now you're saying scholars dont think he actually did that?

(I've read countless commentaries on the passage btw, and never even seen that suggested as a possibility)

7/11/2013 12:33:23 am

Geoff, what I meant was that the writers wrote that as a nod to the Romans, not that Pilate was doing it for that reason. The anonymous writer was taking the blame of what the Romans did and put it at the feet of the Jews. From everything I've read, this scene would be against everything known about both Roman and Jewish culture at the time. I don't know who these commenters are that you refer to, but the scholar who I have read, who can read Hebrew and Greek and have studied the history of the area and time, consider the New Testament to be a historical book, not a history book. Only Bible literalists think that.

titus pullo

7/8/2013 03:06:25 pm

I don't think the Romans considered Jesus during his life as a threat..in fact I'm sure he wasn't even mentioned in Rome...post life...until Christians were considered a threat to Roman authority..after all Romans were the most open to new religions or at least tolerant of them as long as they did not question Roman Govt.

7/8/2013 03:09:34 pm

Speaking of Rome...what is the evidence of the supposed missing Roman legion after Crassius (spell?) defeat in his private military expedition to Parthia..there was some article in the Guardian a few years back that the Parthians took the captured Romans and moved them to central asia as defenders from the Huns..and later they moved to Western China and married natives...that seems pretty far out there..

Dave Lewis

7/8/2013 06:01:01 pm

Assuming the earliest gospel was written about 30 years after the death of Jesus (we can argue about that if you like), I find it hard to believe that the details as enumerated in the passion narratives are accurate.

Dave Lewis

7/8/2013 06:16:54 pm

They are accurate according to 1st C recordings of history. That is, they didnt follow the 20th/21st C literary standards of recording history. Understanding that helps us understand which bits are which. The idea that this kind of criticism hasnt occurred to textual critics over the last 1500 years or more is a bit, well, naive (no offence intended).

Uncle Ron

7/9/2013 02:58:22 pm

DL:
I find it hard to believe that the details as enumerated in the passion narratives are accurate.
GG:
they didnt follow the 20th/21st C literary standards of recording history.

With all due respect, Geoff, what standards of interpreting recorded "history" are WE supposed to follow? When multiple accounts of an event differ as to details, or when there are no corroborating historical documents, or when claims are made that defy logic and modern science, how do WE determine what to believe?
The whole point of what Jason does is to apply 21st Century literary, scientific, and evidentiary standards to questionable claims (which includes much of what is in the Bible). Indeed, part of this process is to take into account the cultural/literary idiosyncrasies of the original writers, but in the end we still have to judge a claim based solely on the evidence that meets modern standards. UR

7/9/2013 04:01:01 pm

Uncle Ron,

What we do is look at how/what/why/etc and note the differences between then and now, and take that into account when we try and understand what they were writing.
You can not discount something because it doesnt meet with modern standards and understandings. For example, it would be wrong to discount the historical writings of some ancient person because they didnt know about evolution, or that the sun didnt revolve around the earth. They just didnt have that understanding.
In the case of the gospels, the manner and means of what they recorded, the kind of information, etc is all in accordance with other documents of that type, in that day. In fact, the LUKE/ACTS section of the gospels is considered exemplary among 1st C histories.The book of John is an eyewitness account/retelling of Jesus life and contains copious verifiable facts as well as being.. well.. an eyewitness.

Anyway, if you feel like a laugh and would like to get a grasp on the kind of arguments we get presented with, have a read of this (tongue in cheek but based on an actual, serious debate): http://www.rightreason.org/2011/inspired-by-actual-events/

and for something more serious:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/establishing-the-gospels-reliability

7/9/2013 04:58:21 pm

"The idea that this kind of criticism hasnt [SIC} occurred to textual critics over the last 1500 years or more is a bit, well, naive (no offence [SIC] intended)."

If you will read again what I wrote you will find that I never said that my doubts about the passion narratives were original. You put those words in my mouth. I think offense was intended.

Dave Lewis

7/9/2013 05:05:16 pm

Dave,

No, I did not intent offence, and I was not specifically referring to the passion narrative, but to that _kind_ of criticism generally.

7/10/2013 03:30:02 am

"They are accurate according to 1st C recordings of history"

That's not even true. I'm not aware of any historical narrative from the era that felt compelled to tell the same general story 4 times in the same work and have numerous objective details differ each time. We might also consider that one of the Gospels might be a 2nd century work.

Speaking of which, how interesting that the most import events in human history from the point of view of the authors should go unrecorded for at least 30 years! That's the sort of thing that made me doubt the veracity of the accounts even as a youth. What sealed the deal of the historicity of Jesus at all for me was my eventual discovery that formerly believing biblical scholars have taken the time to compile reams of what we recognize as NT stories which were common in the literature and tradition of the region before 1 AD.

7/10/2013 09:09:54 am

Mr Randolph,

You being aware of it or not doesnt necessarily discount it, surely? Fact is, I posted a link where one of the foremost scholars of today in the area posts a summary of the discussion. Also, if you google N T Wright, you'll find a number of papers by him (he is the Stephen Hawkings of theology and biblical studies).
I wonder why you would find it odd that 4 people would record the life of someone like Jesus? He had a profound effect on people then and now. I would find it odd if there wasnt 4 records. I've read several different biographies on Jim Morrison, from different perspectives, focusing on different aspects of his life, all depending on what the historian felt to be important, or of value, or interesting.

PS.. Who said they were not recorded for 30 years? Also, who says that writing something 30 years on makes it any less accurate? Particularly in an oral culture that make an art of recording histories over thousands of years and transmitting it orally. That's not to say there wasnt written accounts prior to Mark. In fact we're told that Jesus' mother "stored up" all the things he did.

7/10/2013 11:35:23 am

Mr. Gummer -

You're mainly just playing semantics games. You're the one positively asserting that it was common in the 1st century for people to recite history multiple times with contradictory retellings. If my assertion that I'm not aware of this is incorrect than kindly point us to the myriad of examples in which this method of recounting "history" was commonly used.

I find it VERY odd that 4 people bothered retelling amazing stories about the GOD MADE FLESH VISITING EARTH. This isn't a weather report or a sports update.

I find it extraordinarily odd that claims were made that the graves of Israel opened and zombies walked the Earth (not Jesus mind you but other people - Matthew 27:52) and yet no Roman found this worthy of scribbling down for posterity.

I find it extraordinarily odd that the few people bothering to tell the tale would wait 30-100 years post events to do it. As I keep saying I find it stranger still that people wrote down the same stories many years BEFORE they supposedly happened, featuring a different character. (Or maybe 2000 years from now you'd find the claim that Obama started jukeboxes with his fist and jumped a shark on a motorcycle credible.)

Of course people consider contemporary accounts more valuable than ones written decades (even a century!) later. Why do you think historians prefer primary sources? Why for that matter do people keep diaries..?

7/10/2013 11:41:38 am

Mr Randolph,

I dont recall saying anything about them being contradictory - and if they were, what difference would it made? Even modern retellings of events (example, as I mentioned, the many biographies of Jim Morrison, and more) are contradictory - hell some of them are contradictory and the people are still alive, for goodness sakes.

We KNOW that these accounts were not the first records of Jesus life. This is a matter of record, and I really fail to see why it is a problem.

7/10/2013 05:07:27 pm

Thanks, Geoff. That (link) is why I am hesitant to say that I am an atheist - the tern has so much baggage. So many people assume atheists are all a bunch of wackos who want to take "In God We Trust" off the money (I don't care) and lead the world down the rosy path to hell (I consider myself to be a moral person). My lack of belief is decades old and carefully considered even while I admit that I might be wrong. (Despite what I've been told so often by believers, nobody really "knows" - in the final estimate it's all faith.)

"they didnt follow the 20th/21st C literary standards of recording history."

I know we have to take cultural, etc. differences and technological ignorance into account when reading ancient literature. My point was that we know that early literature was often based on long-standing oral renditions which inevitably had evolved in the re-telling; that it often served an agenda; that it exagerated and conflated events for dramatic effect. So how do we know how much "fact' is left in anything? The fact that certain people, places, and events refered to in the Bible are real doesn't prove anything about the existence of the divine.

BTW: a quick check of one month of Jason's bolg's comments yields a rough average of 8.5 comments per blog. This one has 52. It's obviously a hot topic (and not just the Scott Wolter stuff). And we are really getting off-topic (insert smiley-face here). UR

7/10/2013 11:34:19 pm

Uncle Ron,

I appreciate your story, and yes, I dont like the term "Christian" either, because it carries with it the thought of catholic priests, crusades and other bad stuff.

I would disagree with oral traditions evolving. The Dead Sea Scrolls are one among many things that showed that the ANE peoples were experts at retaining highly accurate oral histories. The Hebrew people particularly, are very good.. We have oral histories thousands of years old, then find written versions which show just how accurate they were.

7/11/2013 07:58:21 am

"I dont recall saying anything about them being contradictory - and if they were, what difference would it made?"

I'm saying something about them being contradictory because you can't logically claim that "the Gospels" are historical but rather can at best claim that one or parts of different ones are. (You then have the burden of telling us which story/-ies are the accurate ones and how you know this.) All 4 can't be eyewitness or even accurate second-hand retellings.

http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm

There are 42 listed factual contradictions - some of them multiply differing between three Gospels. I'm sure that's not a comprehensive list.

There's a big difference between differing perspectives of historical events and radically different claims of fact, such as where an event happened or the order in which events happened.

You can't be taken seriously with "what difference would it make." If this is supposed to be not only a recounting of real events but a recounting of true events whose writing was divinely inspired (a common church claim regardless of Christian sect) I'm afraid this sloppy work just won't do.

Steve St Clair

7/11/2013 11:20:37 am

Geoff Gummer,

You posted, 'You being aware of it or not doesnt necessarily discount it, surely?'

Clearly you haven't met Mr. Randolph (AKA Crabby).
On this blog, he IS Jesus !

Yes, his awareness of something makes it factual. His lack of awareness of something makes it fiction.

Steve

7/12/2013 04:25:59 am

"Yes, his awareness of something makes it factual. His lack of awareness of something makes it fiction."

Can you provide a single example of that ever being my method of argument? One time, in this thread, I used a turn of phrase "I'm not aware..." and our historical Jesus friend has not been able to counter that with any example indicating that he is/we are aware of other contemporary histories that include multiple Rashomon-like retellings of the same stories. Not being able to cite one example is bad way to go about proving that a particular thing was common at a particular time.

Otherwise you'll note that people refuting your fantasies tend to do so with examples, links and specific references.

Steve St Clair link

7/8/2013 07:20:24 pm

Well, thank God Scott Wolter showed up on your blog again. It was getting boring in here. Now you've got some hate going!

You say, "…gives him prima facie credibility that outweighs even the most serious of criticisms in the court of public opinion."

And what is the "most serious […] criticism in the court of public opinion," Jason? Your blog?

Then you say, "Given that outside the immediate leadership of the order, there were virtually no convictions of Templar members, who continued on with their lives, there just isn’t much room for an imaginary flight from Europe."

Reeeeealy?

Philip 'the Fair' initiated the raid on the Templars. Therefore, it makes sense that France was the hotbed of the torture of the Templars. Philip was in a hurry. Other European countries were not.

In France, at least 135 members of the Order of the Temple were arrested and tortured. Now, Jason will bend the statements to say "I said there were virtually no convictions." True, Jason, that's what you said. But the point is that, in France, quite a lot more than 'virtually no' Templars were convicted without a trial and burned by Philip the Fair. 135 of them.

Malcolm Barber, "The Trials of the Templars" Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, indicated that Philip and Pope Clement V had an ongoing dispute about the handling of the Templars. Clement was quite weak. As he tried to get actual trials underway, Philip burned several Templars at the stake. Two days later, (May 12th, 1310) 54 were burned at the stake in the outskirts of Paris.

Other countries like England, Scotland, Ireland, Cyprus, Germany and Italy delayed their trials or ignored them completely. This would certainly have given time to exit the country.

Do you actually own any books on subjects like this, Jason? Or do you simply troll the Internet for research? Including Barber, mentioned above, here are a few more for you to research so that you're prepared with actual facts before you state that 'virtually no convictions' = at least 135 Templars burned at the stake -

Newman, Sharan, "The Real History Behind the Templars", The Berkeley Publishing Group, 2007 ISBN: 978-0-425-21533-3

Nicholson, Helen J. "The Knights Templar on Trial, 1308 - 1311" The History Press 2009 ISBN: 978 0 7509 4681 0

Atienza, Juan Garcia, "The Knights Templar in the Golden Age of Spain," Destiny Books, Rochester, Vermont 2001 ISBN 1-59477-098-0

Gilmour-Bryson, Anne "The trial of the Templars in Cyprus: a complete English edition," Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 1998

Barber, Malcolm, "The Trial of the Templars," Press Syndicate of the Univ. of Cambridge, 1978 ISBN: 0 521 45727 0

I think that you'll find real books by solid researchers are a great way to write you blog. It will take longer and you won't be able to be quite so reactionary - which will also make your blogs more accurate and truthful, unlike this one.

7/8/2013 11:49:20 pm

So, first you say that what I wrote was correct and then you complain that it was not? In France, which is virtually the only place where convictions occurred, 135 or so were burned at the stake. That's out of an estimated 900 imprisoned in Paris alone. Outside of this, there were few executions. So, you have 135 against a total population in the thousands. Since those thousands, as I said, were not in immediate danger of death and are known to have continued on (for the most part) in various other orders, there isn't much room outside of France for the "flight of the Templars." In France, as, again, I discussed, the entirety of the ship story depends on one bit of Latin, which, again, you do not challenge. So, I conclude therefore that you are simply trolling.

And, in case you care, I am hardly the only person to have criticized Scott Wolter. The list is long and growing.

7/9/2013 05:21:21 pm

You wrote, "Given that outside the immediate leadership of the order, there were virtually no convictions of Templar members, who continued on with their lives, there just isn’t much room for an imaginary flight from Europe."

No one knows exactly how many Templars were in France in 1307. So it's difficult to say what percentage of the total were executed. But your statement in the blog post we're all commenting on was 'virtually no convictions…' Merriam-Webster defines "virtually" as: 'for all practical purposes.' So you're saying a rather precise point, aren't you Jason?

And yet, I'd say that roughly 3% of the total population of Templars in France, or 15% of the total of 900 templars imprisoned in France is something more than 'virtually no' which is what you posted and I'm sure will never amend.
(Note: 900 is the figure you wrote with, as usual, no source quoted. Default: Wikipedia)

I'd also point out that a threat of death, with ample evidence of Philip's intent to carry it out, would have been incentive to move somewhere.

You also added that neat little sentence regarding those Templars who weren't executed 'who continued on with their lives…' I'm not certain what you mean by that, Jason. Are you saying they simply shrugged their shoulders and went back to farming the land? What land? What lives did they continue on with? Do you have some source you're quoting and neglected to footnote? I'm guessing no. I'm guessing you just liked the sound of it after you wrote it.

You see, Jason, there are actual facts available to blog writers like yourself. But, like so many others, you'd rather post loose numbers than do actual research. Jochen Burgtorf has some interesting facts in his "The Debate on the Trial of the Templars: 1307 - 1314." Beginning in 1307, there were many inventories taken of the property of the Templars; especially to make sure the transfer to the Hospitallers went smoothly. In Chapter 9, Burgtorf gives some indication of just how much remains un-studied to this day. Marquis Andre d'Albon created over 70 volumes of inventories, mostly from France but also from other parts of Europe. These contain over 30 trial inventories, mostly from Southern France.

What annoys me here is how your cronies (like the almighty Crabby) allow you to post such fast and loose statements, without any footnotes, and never sound the bullshit alarm. Do some homework Jason. Like a good researcher, try to prove your hypothesis wrong. Ever try that??

7/9/2013 11:41:15 pm

You're snarky tone and implication that I am intentionally fabricating is growing tiresome. I notice that you fail to apply to me the generosity of spirit you'd like me to give to everyone else. I'll modify the sentence to reflect the information above, but for you to imply that I somehow make things up--all while failing to address substantively any of the actual main points of my post, about the scanty evidence for any sea-voyage--smacks of the type of undisguised hostility you try to impute to me.

Tara Jordan

7/10/2013 03:53:17 am

Jason.Why Don't you tell this congenital idiot to get lost?.This is your blog,you are not supposed to endure his insanity.

St Clair (Aka his special bloodline Majesty).You are a pseudo intellectual abomination.Do yourself a favor,stop exposing yourself on a public network,you are the laughing stock of this blog.

B L

7/10/2013 05:52:19 am

Jason,

Interesting that Steve St. Clair is willing to challenge you on the total percentage of Templars executed stating that "no one knows exactly how many Templars were in France in 1307". Why, I wonder, does he not apply the same critique to the minutiae of Scott Wolter's hypothesis about the holy Sinclair bloodline?

It seems to me that the leap you make is much less wide than Wolter's Evel Knievel-type Snake River Canyon jump attempts.

7/10/2013 05:56:25 am

I wasn't even trying to make a leap; I only wanted to say that so far as records show, the persecution was fairly confined in time and space, restricting the room available to insert 18 galleys of Templar fugitives into the historical record. But even if thousands were in flight (as I mentioned, to Switzerland or Scotland), it doesn't change the fact that the 18 galleys launching into the ocean is one single person's secondhand rumor. Nor even if they did launch (as doubtful as it seems) does it prove that they went to America instead of the more logical grounds of Scotland.

7/10/2013 05:59:36 am

Tara - I try not to restrict who posts here, nor could I really stop him except by manually deleting every post. In general, I prefer to counter bad ideas with good ideas rather than suppressing those with which I disagree.

7/9/2013 01:49:05 am

Germany and Italy weren't political units at the time.

7/9/2013 01:55:41 am

To be fair, they were geographic expressions often used as catch-alls. That still doesn't explain how the lack of executions implies that the Templars fled to America; indeed, I pointed out myself that historians think many who fled went to Switzerland, though I also left out (because it wasn't really relevant) claims that they went to the excommunicated lands in Scotland, etc. In sum, you need a lot more evidence to get from "they weren't tried" to "they fled across the Atlantic."

7/9/2013 02:15:16 am

What I meant was that it was less than accurate to depict Germany and Italy having made what were political decisions as units in the 14th century. If St. Clair is going to speculate wildly that should probably include political units that existed in the century.

Incidentally it looks like Spain, Ireland and for that matter modern France weren't single political units in 14th c. either. The actual kingdoms which comprised them and which would be deciding what if anything to do with any Templars largely went unmentioned.

james

7/10/2013 04:43:55 am

So Steve had access to the same facts as you, and essentially draws the same conclusion about only the Templar leadership being executed; but because of the way you worded your post, he feels the need to whip out his e-peen and ejaculate his Templar library all over the place.

Yes Steve, well done, you are very clever and you know lots about the Knights Templar. You didn't really manage to refute anything except the way he worded a couple of things though, did you?

Gunn Sinclair

7/10/2013 06:38:17 am

From "An Illustrated History of the Knights Templar," by James Wasserman, page164:

"...The (54) men were immediately taken to a field and burned alive, heroically proclaiming their innocence and that of the Order as they died. The impact of this atrocity silenced any future witnesses. Meanwhile, the burnings continued. Within days, 120 men perished by fire."

Wasserman claims there were about 5,000 French Templars and that few escaped.

But some Templars did escape, to places such as Switzerland and Scotland. Others simply changed their name. Templar remnants lived on for a very long time, eventually becoming Freemasons.

My guess is that Steve St. Clair's ancestors may likely fit in as a sort of go-between during this transition stage, to be seen and understood in the fabulous architecture of Rosyln Chapel.

As for Mr. Wolter's viewpoints, I can only say that Jesus fulfilled many mysteries of the Old Testament, concerning what was to come, but He explained many mysteries of God in parables for easy understanding, too (not darkly). His very clear parables and His message didn't arise out of Egypt.

Jesus came as God in the flesh, unlike ancient Egyptian rulers who only thought they were divine. Jesus didn't busy himself teaching past mysteries of the occult, but rather He came to show us how to live in the light of goodness and be saved out of darkness.

Jesus is more than an historical literary Figure, and certainly more than a human bloodline stretching back to Adam.

Many Knights Templar "died for Jesus," and their devotion still shines today. It is possible that Mr. Wolter is correct about the Knights Templar remnants coming to America. Connected to the exactitude of the Cistercian mindset, I can envision Templars coming to the exact center of North America to begin a new empire...it not working out...and then Freemasons beginning America on the East Coast as a later second choice.

I think Wolter, to his credit, MAY be right about certain aspects of the hooked X, as relating to the Knights Templar--though I believe he's completely off-base about other very significant spiritual aspects, concerning Jesus.

Keith

7/11/2013 12:14:13 am

So Gunn, who came to America? Was it a gang of swaggering Norsemen, out to claim some nice new land? Was it a desperate galley of fleeing Templars? Was it the bloodline descendent of Jesus of Nazareth?

Your opinions seem to change based on how much you think you can push back against the "mainstream" view. It wasn't too long ago that you were dismissing the Templars as wholly unlikely in favor of Vikings, and you removed the "Sinclair" from your name because of how unlikely you now thought it that Henry Sinclair ever did cross the Atlantic.

Arguing for a historical Jesus is like arguing for a historical King Arthur. There are real names, places, battles and events mentioned in the earliest records of Arthur, just like there are in the NT. In texts which were the standard reference for British history for hundreds of years, King Arthur was described as a real, historical figure. Landmarks relating to him, and battles he won are listed.
So maybe there was a historical King Arthur, who did win some battles, but I dont think he pulled a magic sword from a river or was friends with a wizard. Just like there maybe was a historical Jesus, but I dont think he walked on water or raised anyone from the dead.

Gunn

7/11/2013 04:29:23 am

"It wasn't too long ago that you were dismissing the Templars as wholly unlikely in favor of Vikings."

Anyone reading this blog for the past few months knows I have spent considerable time and effort disassociating the Kensington Runestone from Vikings. A quarter of a millennium separate the two.

It is possible that Templars left the KRS, but it is also possible that other Christians left it, too. The hooked X is a Christian symbol, but not limited to the Templars.

Anyone can believe in God, or not believe in God. God gives us that choice. It takes a certain amount of faith, something probably lacking in this "skeptics forum." Millions of people across earth believe Jesus is God, and that He is relevant today...not just in the past.

7/11/2013 05:49:04 am

I'm using "vikings" as a generalized term for Norsemen, but you and Steve do love your semantics, dont you?

It is very probable other Christians left it (eg. the Christian settlers living in that area at the time of its initial discovery), I agree with you there.

Millions of people across the Earth also believe Muhammad or Moses is the true prophet of the same God you believe in, what makes your version of worshipping Yahweh the true one? Let's not get off topic here, I only meant to talk about the historical accuracy of the New Testament, not call your faith into question.

7/12/2013 07:24:43 am

The large statue of Big Ole the Viking, in Alexandria, MN, has emblazoned across his chest:

"Alexandria, MN Birthplace of America."

This is what can happen when the term Viking is too comfortably interchanged with the term Norseman.

Probably my main complaint is that locals up here--especially media--constantly lump the Kensington Runestone in with Vikings. It's true that Vikings included Norsemen, but it's not true that all Norsemen were Vikings, especially time-wise. For example, the Swedes and "Northmen" who left the KRS (dated 1362) were Norsemen, but clearly not Vikings, as that period was pretty much over by 1100 AD.

Big Ole is lying. Paganism out, Christianity in. It make a difference, Keith, when searching for history truth.

Paul Cargile

7/11/2013 02:50:13 am

It's also possible they created advanced rockets and founded a colony on the moon. We can almost do that now, so why not the Templars?

Only Me

7/10/2013 08:46:59 am

Steve, are you bipolar? Here's the basis for my question:

Steve St. Clair #1
a) Came to this blog to defend his genealogical research
b) Unable to reconcile the contradiction between his statements on this site with those on his website
c) Resorts to debates about semantics to avoid answering the above

Steve St. Clair #2
a) Tries to instigate a flame war with Tara Jordan and Christopher Randolph ("Crabby" references, sarcastic "fecal sandwich" comments)
b) Falsely accuses Jason of attacking Scott Wolters's wife, with a suggestion to investigate his dog
c) Falsely accuses Jason of "hate" and fabrication

None of these observations are open to interpretation, they are based on your past history on this blog.

Next, you demand Jason engage in research. I ask, have you, in all your research efforts, been able to track down the sources from your Templar library list and determined if they are from original sources? Are they factually accurate?

You conveniently ignore the fact that Jason will track down, include relevant text and provide translations of primary sources to support his arguments and lend credence to his findings. Yet, as Tara pointed out, you fail to do the same with your pal, Scott.

The man exploited you and your family name for his show, but instead of justifiable outrage, you excuse it with "we're friends, and even though I don't agree with his ideas, I find them interesting." As long as you're willing to entertain them, you have no right to come here as his advocate.

The only "hate" I see comes from you.

7/10/2013 09:42:50 am

Excellent résumé,but what do you expect from an egomaniacal grown up man who behaves like a 14 yr old suffering from delusion of grandeur.St Clair takes the Da Vinci Code as a source of inspiration.In St Clair`s world, the Da Vinci Code is a scientific document.I may be "vehemently vile" (according to Gunn Sinclair) but I don't even feel sorry for the someone who pretends to be part of a "special bloodline".The Ku Klux Klan rednecks also hold the same type of belief. St Clair`s entire life is a monument to stupidity.
I am perfectly aware of acting as a nuisance against the lunatics who constantly attack Jason, but there is no "noble" intention behind their motivation,they just want to silence him & ils ne reculent devant rien.Pure filth.

7/10/2013 03:01:36 pm

Thank you, Tara. I try hard to not engage in non-relevant commentary, per Jason's request, but I feel I must call out such blatant double standards.

Don't worry about Gunn. He seems to have abandoned his self-appointed duty to expose you and Varika as "feminist blog rats."

7/11/2013 02:41:13 am

Gunn is okay.He sometime acts like a dinosaur but he is a decent guy & pretty harmless.My beef is with her snotty "Majesty Steve Clair".Needless to say, I am not a feminist.I dont even understand what stands behind the definition of feminist ;)

7/11/2013 05:04:06 am

One thing I've discovered about this blog is that some visiting here have a remarkable capacity for researching. Jason is good at researching, especially for original documents.

I would like to enlist this blog patrons' to help me find out, if possible, what a certain object is. It may be medieval treasure of sorts...even Templar treasure....

Solve this very real "history riddle" and become Gunn's hero, or heroine. Unlike Steve St. Clair, who comes from a long line of recognized nobility carried forward to his day, this can be a sort of shortcut to instant nobility in my eyes.

No crass comments, please, just valuable information.

7/11/2013 05:04:49 am

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/discoveries/id25.html

7/11/2013 06:35:44 am

Gunn. re. your link (& not trying to be crass):
"Do you see the fresh lichon from the tree roots?"

Seriously? Lichens are not from tree roots, they grow above ground and VERY slowly. Obviously the object has been above ground for roughly one or more years (I'm not familiar with the exact growth rate of lichens but it's slooow). The rest of the article doesn't even rise to the level of reasoned speculation. "Fire plough"? A fire plough is made of wood!! Also, there does not appear to be any earth or corrosion scale clinging to the object, as there would be if it was under ground as long as the writer wishes it to have been.

This object doesn't look like anything deliberately formed but does appear to have broken edges. IF it is iron it could be a piece of slag from a foundry or even a piece of a meteorite but not a "chisel holder" (obviously the writer has never used a hammer and chisel).

The item in the fifth of the top five photos photos doesn't even appear to be the same object (profile and aspect ratio).
UR

7/12/2013 08:44:53 am

Let's be nice, Uncle Ron. What we have here with the lichen is a symbiotic relationship in which each specie's benefits are mutualistic. I thought it was odd, too, until I studied lichens. Lichens within roots are common.

Let's be nice again, Uncle Ron, about fire ploughs. A fire plough is a piece of metal to strike something like a flint-stone against. Sometimes the metal part is embedded in wood, which is what you are probably thinking of. Again, a study of medieval fire ploughs will help your understanding. Don't take my word for it, even though my level of reasoned speculation is definately up to the task.

It is the same item in all photos, except for the image of the scooping chisel, of course. If anyone is interested further, I can upload more images of the object.

Uncle Ron, I'm disappointed in you.

7/12/2013 09:05:38 am

You can see that the object was formed with heat and then struck with a die. It was worked to perform a task or tasks.

What is this historic object? Who is curious enough to find out?
Not the State Archaeologist...it may be too closely linked to the Kensington Runestone. (Or it might be something Olaf created, as I read that he did some blacksmithing.)

I believe a closer examination by medieval blacksmithing enthusiasts may uncover what it is, unless it is completely unique to something Olaf Ohman was doing.

It deserves a professional study since it was found only yards from the KRS. Metallurgy tests could reveal a lot, and wouldn't cost much at all. It fell into the wrong hands...the so-called authorities.

I wish Scott Wolter had bothered to look into it almost two years ago now, instead of wasting his time with some of these other half-baked inquiries. Maybe it's not too late.

7/12/2013 09:37:23 pm

Gunn, I have to agree with Uncle Ron on this one. The item in the last photo of the original five looks nothing like the others. The previous close up shots shows the object to have a conical shape. The last close up resembles a fossilized theropod dinosaur tooth still attached to a fragment of the jawbone.

What I do find interesting is the rounded groove along what I suppose is the centerline, as is seen on the underside of the object. This implies the center may have been hollow, and that the object itself is only half of its original design. I propose that it may be a discarded remnant of a broken farming implement, but I could be wrong.

I wouldn't place much stock in its proximity to the KRS site, as yet. After all, the Coso Artifact turned out to be nothing more than a spark plug from a Model A, IIRC.

7/12/2013 04:47:31 pm

Gunn

I was being nice (I didn't say "fecal" once!)

If you studied lichens you know that a lichen is a symbiotic organism composed of fungus and algae. The algae are photosynthetic and therefore must live above ground. Organisms which have a symbiotic relationship with a root are called mycorrhiza, and grow on the root, not on a piece of iron buried in the ground.

An iron object which is struck against a piece of flint, etc. to produce fire by spark is a fire-strike. A fire plough is a wooden rod which is rubbed vigorously back and fourth within a wooden trough (any groove in another piece of wood) to produce fire by heat of friction.

I could go on but I see now that it is pointless. What personal attachment or emotional investment do you have in this random bit of scrap to want so dearly that it be something important? UR

7/13/2013 06:22:53 am

You are wrong, Uncle Ron. Seeing is believing in this case. I added 10 more pictures, so you can see the object from all angles. Included is a photo or two showing lichen. My guess is that there is a symbiotic relationship going on with the metal, as well as with the tree roots and lichen. Lichen grows on metal. So, lichen grows on metal and within tree roots. Plus, anyone can see the greenish lichen in a few photos. By the way, the lichen became dry and powdery in the air and came off.

As for the fire plough, I should've indicated that the metal object could be a sort of "fire steel", generating sparks by striking a flint-stone down it, for example. Anyway, the idea is that perhaps it may have been used to help start fires, along with other uses.

Uncle Ron, you come across as exactly, precisely, crass...a situation I was hoping to escape. But I must remember that this is a skeptic's blog, and you are naturally skeptical...but hopefully, not naturally mean and nasty. (Ted Turner against Lou Dobbs, concerning Mexicans.)

I believe the object may possibly be a personal tool or sidearm (or both) from medieval times, and not merely a random bit of scrap from Olaf Ohman's farming days. It would simply be nice to know more about it, since it was found in close proximity to the Kensington Runestone, and quite deep.

Mean and nasty is mean and nasty, Uncle Ron. Are you really an uncle, or is it just to throw people off by sounding friendly and comfy, like a smiley old distant family member looking over the top of his glasses?

7/12/2013 01:20:50 pm

That's not how it works in this crowd, Gunn. This bunch wait for you to prove that it's real. Then they swarm in and examine it so they can take a little morsel of credit for it. In the meantime, they crap all over it.

I didn't pick up that it was found just yards from the KRS until this post. I tend not to read much in these blog comments. Very little of interest comes out. However, this looks interesting and the proximity of the object to the KRS is interesting. Can you contact me at the Sinclair Research website? Click my name above.

Steve

7/14/2013 02:20:39 pm

His majesty of special bloodline something.
Refusing to take your pseudo intellectual garbage as face value is tantamount to crapping?.You may be a phony aristocrat but you have some entertainment value, Steve.

Jay

10/2/2013 10:57:42 am

Holy geez, the more I read comments on this blog the more I see your name and you raging...For heavens sake man (generally speaking and no gender association intended), take a deep breath before you have a stroke lol.

jerry gifford link

7/14/2013 11:32:03 am

I am on Jason's side in this argument. Even to the extent to say I do believe in the scared feminine.

First off. Stating someone is legitimate because he/she has a couple of programs on the History Channel is like all saying reality shows are real. Anyone who has a 'clear' mind knows better. It insults my intelligence {what little I have} to believe they don't make the shows controversial to draw ratings. Yes, there is a ghost in every house, barn, place they inspect. They prove it when the guy is startled at some noise in the background. 'Oh my gosh', it is real because I saw it on TV.

How does the commercial go? 'It has to be true because it is on the internet'.

But the influence of this nonsense programming is real. The fact so many people believe reality shows are real demonstrates this. 'Pro wrestling' was at one time thought by most to be legit {some still do}. Now the promoters call it entertainment. That is what reality shows are. Entertainment {for dummies}.

As for the Templars, we just don't know all there is to know to be sure. I've read {and yes watched} a lot on the topic and I see nothing that is so conclusive you can say it is the final truth. Too many competing theories. Of course again you have to take in the entertainment value even with this programming. Who would watch if it weren't controversial? There is money to be made all around.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

8/14/2013 05:19:54 pm

There is a LOT of speculation going on around here ... and so frequently, the habit is to claim one's OWN speculation as "the truth" ...

9/17/2013 02:17:53 pm

It's quiet here ...

Black Hole

12/8/2013 07:05:10 pm

Jason has admitted in other posts that he doesn't do any field work and everything he discredits comes from some published work of his own or published work of another. It's all about whats in the good ole textbooks of history. If it's not there or written down on some document then it never happened or couldn't have happened differently. I supposed if he lost his birth certificate he would argue he was never born.