I thought I would open the floor to debate on this subject. The Knights Templar with all their history and lore completely fascinate me. I was wondering a few things:

1) What is the current debated theories on the connection between the Freemasons and the Knights Templar?

2) What would you consider the current Knights Templar as, a symbolic group or the modern version of the Templar...or something else?

Just some food for thought. Share your thoughts.

Fraternally,

Jacob P. Descheneaux

Hello Jacob,

The Masonic body known as the Knights Templar does not claim to be associated with the historical Knights Templars.  They are a symbolic group, and not actual modern Templars.

As for the connection between the two, none exists or can be proven, but I did read a book written by a couple of Masons who assert that there was a connection.  The book was “The Second Messiah: Templars the Turin Shroud and the Great Secret of Freemasonry” by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas.

Please understand that this book is NOT an official position on Freemasonry, and I personally find their conclusions to be anything but logical.  Still it is an interesting read.

If there was any direct connection between the Templars and the Freemasons, I would see no reason not to disclose it, and yet we don’t, leading me to believe that there is none.

If you can prove otherwise, you’ve got yourself a heck of a book deal on your hands, and I’ll be one of your first readers!

Dan

Hi Jacob,
I too am fascinated by the crusades and the role that the Templars played. I have to agree with Dan’s post earlier; I have not come across any connection between the Templars and Freemasons. All I would suggest is that the crusades, following The Dark Ages, brought back to Europe a wealth of information in the form of literature, art, science and architecture, to name but a few. Indeed, following the initial crusades, Europe witnessed the construction of some of the most spectacular cathedrals; Notre Dame, for example.
All the best,
Paul.

Thank you for your posts. I to share your beliefs, I do not believe there is a connection between the original Templar and its modern incarnation. However, I do find the subject to be quite fascinating.

Jake

There is no historical evidence to link the Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ and the Temple to Freemasonry. In fact the only link is that our Masonic forebears were just as fascinated by them as we are today and started a couple of “tribute” Orders based on them.

Just for the record over here in the UK R Lomas is regarded as being just a bit on the “fringe” with his theories, he could be likened to a modern day Albert Pike or Manly Hall.

It is also worth remembering that aside from the Masonic “Templars” there are also several Templar bodies that have no connection to Freemasonry at all.

Mike

-

Rookhawk - 14 July 2009 02:45 AM

I have some supporting circumstantial evidence that suggests a connection between freemasonry and the original knights templar. Much of this circumstantial evidence is hypothesized in an excellent book called “born in blood” by Robinson.

Robinson discusses a painting “the wayfarer” by Hieronymus Bosch circa 1500 that is irrefutably masonic. You can search google for a clear picture of this painting. That area has been covered well in both “born in blood” and his other book, “a pilgrim’s path”.

Unfortunately, brother Robinson and other masonic scholars missed two significant links in the painting that connect the dots to the templars much more clearly. This is mainly due to lack of knowledge of Ornithology and a rudimentary understanding of heralrdy.

1. On the left side of the canvas representing the old, unelightened, evil ways of the world there is a bird in a cage, jailed. The bird is a magpie. On the right side of the canvas in the green pastures of enlightenment in which direction the wayfarer is walking (east), there is a magpie sitting free on a perch.

A. Magpies were not known as domestic pets in the early 14th century. This is an area of which I have researched extensively for over 20 years. (medieval world / birds in medieval life)

Actually, I’ve seen several references to magpies as pets dating to the early 14th century.Here is a reference to an image.  However, considering that 1500 was the beginning of the sixteenth century, discussing pet keeping in the 1300s is rather irrelevant.

Also, in most of Bosch’s work- including “The Haywain”, which he repainted the wayfarer figure on the outer doors about ten years later, the left side of the image is the heavenly or “good” side, and the right is the hellish or “evil” side, the imagery of the free magpie is therefore more reasonably attributed to Death being let loose upon the Earth- magpies and crows, as carrion eaters, were (as they are today) associated with death and especially violent death.

His left foot is slipshod exactly why? And is his left trouser leg rolled up?

Let us not forget the Operative roots of the Medieval working mason in the mine, quarries and scaffolds of Europe, Near and Far East. For the most part, it is my understanding that the Operative Mason Guild built the Edifices and Fortresses and Castles and yes, Prisons of the regions. My personal exposure to the ancient “mark” of a masonic guild workman on a wall, indicates that masons were active and setting a timing congruous with the Templars.

Ronald Doucette - Forum Moderator

Dodging the subject of the Bosch painting, which is certainly a fascinating one, but not directly related to the Templars, there is an important fact about the ancient Templars which is almost universally ignored, which is THEY WERE MONKS.

Shortly after the Order came into being, they came, or brought themselves, to the attention of Bernard of Clairvaux (later St. Bernard), a reforming abbot who was at the time (early 12th century) one of the best known and most influential leaders of the Church. Bernard helped to arrange for the new order to be placed directly under the control of the Pope alone, making them exempt from any control, interference, taxation or payments by any authority, whether civil or ecclesiastical. He also wrote a rule for the Templars. A monastic rule is a set of regulations to be followed to the letter by all members. The Templars thus became an organization of monks and their rule included, as all rules did, the three vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience. The vow of Obedience required them to give total, immediate, and unquestioning obedience to their superiors. That of chastity required they be unmarried and live chaste lives. By the vow of poverty they renounced and made over to the Order, at the time of their initiation, any and all property of any kind (even their personal effects) which they then possessed and also gave over to the Order any right they might have in anything they might acquire in the future. The rule required that they attend, if not actually engaged in their military duties, the canonical offices every day. They advanced into battle with the Beauceant and religious banners flying, singing the ancient hymn Vexilla Regis Prodeunt, The Royal Banners Forward Go. Even in the field, they began every day with Matins and Prime and ended every day with Vespers and Compline.

Much has been made of the enormous wealth which the Order accumulated. The most popular explanation is that they discovered a great treasure in the ruins of the Temple in Jerusalem, but there is a much simpler, though less romantic, explanation. Law and custom in Europe at the time stipulated that on the death of a landowner his real estate with all castles, manors and other buildings passed undivided to his eldest surviving son or, in default of a son, to the nearest male heir. This meant that younger sons (cadets) had to be provided for, since they were an expense and maybe a nuisance if they stayed at home. It was customary for cadets to be placed with friendly lords as esquires so they could eventually become knights and support themselves by fighting; a second or third cadet was often given to the Church, the family paying for him to be educated and eventually receive a benefice, or even a bishopric if the family were very rich. The Templars promptly became a respected and popular order, and provided an attractive way to dispose of cadets, and many younger sons of wealthy families became Templars. However, given the mortality of that era, it frequently happened that the elder son or sons died untimely and a cadet became the heir. If that cadet was a Templar, the estate became the property of the Order and was administered by the nearest Temple or by agents hired by them and the estate and its revenue was subject to no taxes or other charges. Over the course of the 12th and 13th centuries, the Order accumulated many such properties over much of Europe, the revenue from which was the basis of the international banking system which they set up and which brought in even more revenue. Ironically, this turned out to be their downfall, since it aroused the greed of Philippe le Bel.

What does this have to do with Masonry? Probably nothing, of course. The Templars in their day had plenty to do without engaging in philosophy or architectural studies, although they had very competent, even brilliant, engineers and builders in their ranks, as is shown by their buildings which have survived. But the pitiful remnant which was dispersed all over Europe after the Dissolution in 1307 was still bound by their vows and the Rule. My own guess was that mostly they sought refuge in monasteries as the only way to fulfill their monastic vows. It is just barely possible that if a significant number escaped to Scotland and managed to form their own community and practice the Rule, they could have helped out at the Battle of Bannockburn, but that is speculation only. The Robinson Theory of how they transmuted themselves and their successors into Free Masons is an attractive one and well thought out, but still unproven.