Godfrey De Bouillon's Templar Knights –
Mount Sion and the Essenes
The major Crusader Knights who can be discerned behind many events in Palestine at the time of the First Crusade was Godfrey de Bouillon. Godfrey, as we know, was of Merovingian descent on his mother’s side – and given the legends surrounding the Merovingian bloodline – I wondered if by having access to family archives Godfrey may have had an ulterior motive when he marched on Jerusalem in 1099. When the Crusaders finally liberated the Holy Sepulchre (the supposed reason for the calling of the Crusades by the Pope) Godfrey was elected as ‘King of Jerusalem’. As is well known – Godfrey declined this office, but instead accepted the title of ‘Protector of the Holy Sepulchre’. The anonymous conclave of individuals who made this decision to vote for Godfrey have eluded all historical enquiry as to their identity. Until now! In an article called ‘The Frist Templars’1 this author discusses overwhelming evidence suggesting that the Templar Knights were instigated by Godfrey de Bouillon and his association with the Holy Sepulchre. An eyewitness of the First Crusade, and indeed, the ‘official biographer’ of Godfrey was a man called Albert of Aachan. Albert discussed the ‘domus godefridi’ – a body of men with which Godfrey was able to rule Jerusalem. In a future article, I plan to discuss this body of men, who I think are the anonymous conclave which carried out political will at the time of the First Crusade. Most of this conclave I am going to term the Lorraine Fraternity, after Butler & Dafoe (who also discuss a ‘secret’ conclave of individuals whom they term the Troyes Fraternity), which discusses the individuals who ‘kept’ Godfrey and later his brother Baldwin I in power. These appear to be blood relatives of the Merovingians, or were persons who held very high places back in the land of Godfrey’s before he left for the Holy Land.
It is after the capture of the Holy Land that
the Knights Templar are said to have been formed. The Knights Templar later became synonymous with the
idea of the warrior monks protecting pilgrims – this may have an element of
truth on some level – but this reason may have been confused with an allied
aim – which was that after Jerusalem was conquered the holy places had to then
be protected from falling into Muslim hands again. It is easy to see why this
aim would have later become synonymous with pilgrim protection. But in Godfrey's
time not only do his Templars not seem to take this form, the official
historical date and appearance is given as around 1118. This can be dismissed
when looking at other contemporary documentation regarding why the Templars were
formed as opposed to the continual references to William of Tyre (indeed on
several occasions it can be shown that this chronicler is wrong in his date for
the formation of the Templars2). The only group that Godfrey appears
to have been connected with was one he set up called the ‘Order of the Holy
Sepulchre’. This sounds plausible. If he was in actual fact the ‘Protector
of the Holy Sepulchre’ it is highly probable that Godfrey installed a knightly
order to protect the very Sepulchre he sought to liberate.
There are suggestions by
various ‘occult’ historians that
Godfrey did set up a
society, which appeared to be related to, but not exactly, the Knights of the
Holy Sepulchre. For example Mackey asserts that Godfrey set up a society in
Palestine in 1100 – whose emblems were the rose and cross, inferring that one
should see in this group the origins of the Rosicrucians. Modern historians are
just beginning to see the connections of Godfrey, the Holy Sepulchre and the
Templars.
Godfrey only lived one
year after his capture of Jerusalem, dying almost one year to the day of
entering the Holy City (with some commentators suggesting he had been poisoned3)
– so maybe he did set up an Order on his deathbed. As Godfrey's brother
Baldwin then took the title ‘King of Jerusalem’ perhaps the Order was
entrusted to Baldwin? If so, this would be significant because it is later
Baldwin I who gives to the Knights Templar their headquarters on the Temple
Mount.4 Godfrey's ‘rose & cross’ society might in some way
correlate with information also supplied by Waite. He refers to a ‘Society of
Ormus’ who claimed that they were the founders of the Rosicrucian Order. Waite
tells us that this ‘Ormus’ Order had close links with the Knights Templar
– and it may be that Mackey and Waite are both reporting the same information
but from different sources. There is enough overlap in their separate accounts
to suggest this. Waite’s ‘Society of Ormus’ came to Europe in 1188 –
which Waite confirms was an important date for the Knights Templar.5
Historical records do tell us that this was indeed an important date for the
Templars. Another group – the fabled ‘Order of Sion’ are said to be a
secret society behind the Templars (and actually, behind the election of Godfrey
de Bouillon too) who also used the subtitle of Ormus. In their literature this
group asserted that an important date for them was 1188 (when they separated
from the Knights Templar & went their own way). This would suggest that the
Order of Sion, which claimed to have been created by Godfrey de Bouillon would
be analogous to the ‘Lorraine Fraterntiy’.
Thus there does seem to
be circumstantial evidence that
Godfrey did indeed set
up a Knightly order in the Holy Land, and from most reports the reoccurring
themes seem to be that it was secret, it was hermetical and alchemical, that it
was connected very closely with the Knights Templar, and that Godfrey de
Bouillon was the founder. The idea of secrecy may not imply any sinister intent.
However, it may indicate a ‘plan of action’ on the part of Godfrey and this
‘Lorraine Fraterntiy’. This plan of action would seem to involve France, the
Holy Land, the Templars and of course the ‘Lorraine Fraternity’. This is not
as wild an idea as it seems. Markale makes mention of a letter written by a very
famous monk called Gerbert of Aurillac (who later became Pope Sylvester II).
This Pope had, at least 100 years before the First Crusade, suggested in a
letter that he ‘hopes France would recover the holy places so that a search
could be made for the keys to the Universal Understanding hidden ther’6.
This of course suggests that knowledge of some sort was known, and that it
would necessitate a search of the Holy Places.
There is evidence that
the Templars, and by association the Knights and monks installed by Godfrey de
Bouillon, and even Godfrey himself did undertake various searches among the Holy
Places. This secret society of proto-Templars – and in particular – the
‘secret order’ behind them (whether the Order of Sion, or whether an inner
group of Godfrey's) were said to have occupied the Abbey of Notre Dame du Mont
de Sion until 1187. This is actually correct. Godfrey de Bouillon did set up
residence at Mount Sion after his liberation of the Holy Sepulchre.7
This Abbey on Mount Sion included
the Tomb of David, the Cenacle and the ancient Church of the Apostles. The site
has been regularly excavated since at least the 1970’s & in this article I
would like to discuss some of the discoveries on the site of Godfreys
‘order’ and how this might help us to understand more the motives of Godfrey
de Bouillon and those associated with him. The main thrust of the discussion is
the amazing identification of this site with an ancient Essene community who
lived here during the time of Jesus. The Essenes are identified as those priests
and monks who lived a sectarian existence on the shores of the Dead Sea and
other places, and who are generally accepted as the creators of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. These facts have the ability to bring into focus some hypothesis about
what Godfrey, in the vein of Pope Sylvester’s II letter may suggest, may have
discovered.
A further amazing
discovery I found during this research – was the fact that medieval copies of
Qumran documents exist. These include 2 fragments
of the manuscript found at Qumran and later called the Damascus Document. They
have been dated to the 10th and 12th century respectively.
How can it be, that copies of Scrolls dating to the Middle Ages were found
before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947? Remember
– the existence of the Scrolls was not even known until their discovery. Could there be some link with Godfrey, the Essene
settlement at Mount Sion where he built the abbey and the medieval copies of
Dead Sea Scrolls? Could this information help us to understand how the Templars
later had an aura of mystery surrounding them, and why the Templars began to
appoint their own priests, conduct secret rituals and be reported to have held
heretical beliefs about Jesus Christ? Could it suggest some solution to the ‘univeral
understanding hidden there’?
In the ‘Holy Blood,
Holy Grail’ (Lincoln et al, 1996) the authors state that the Templars, and the
secret society behind them occupied a structure on Mount Sion which they called
the Abbey of Notre Dame du Mont de Sion, and that it housed this secret society
until 1187. This abbey appears to have been built over an older site, which was
said to house the Tomb of David, the Cenacle and the ancient Church of the
Apostles. As this Church of the Apostles seemed to be important to the Crusaders
I decided to look into its history. For example, why is this church known as the
‘Mother of all Churches’? Why did Godfrey de Bouillon want to build an Abbey
there? What exactly constituted the building works of Godfrey and his Knights?
And who and what community was housed in this Abbey?
Is there a connection
with the recent discovery that this site is also the site of an Essene
settlement in Jerusalem?
The Mount Sion we are
discussing is the hill, which sits to the west of the Tyropoeon Valley. Sion is
also the name given to the old ‘City of David’ and
the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Here on the western Mount Sion is the site of a
very ancient church – called the Church of the Apostles. Pinkerfeld excavated
this site and suggested that the foundation floor could be evidence of a Judeao-Christian
synagogue – which he assumed had been built by the first ‘Christians’.8
When the Crusaders arrived they began to build on this site at Mount Sion
supporting the assertions made by Lincoln et al.9 The Crusaders
indeed added to the building of this Church of the Apostles. The archaeological
evidence for this includes eight crusader pillar foundations, and some rooms and
designs that the Crusaders added to the basic structure. For example the
Crusaders built the ‘Chapel of the Holy Spirit’ which commemorated the
appearance of the Holy Spirit to the disciples there. They also decorated the
Cenotaph of David with rosettes, and they built a room called the ‘Chamber of
Mysteries’ – a most suggestive title. This ‘Chamber of Mysteries’ was
built over the Cenacle – and it is this room that is associated with the Last
Supper. The Crusaders carved Grapes onto the pillars – a symbol of the wine
used at the Eucharist. Although it has to also be suggested that the grapes may
have other symbolism.10 These symbols were found within the room of
the Cenacle. Perhaps it was here – in the Chamber of Mysteries that the early
Templars held their first rituals?
Lincoln et al (1996)
refer to ‘numerous extant charters, chronicles and contemporary accounts’
that suggest an abbey was built on these Byzantine ruins. They suggest that the
abbey was built at the behest of Godfrey de Bouillon (although they do not
appear to cite their sources for this).
Even though Godfrey was
building ‘an abbey’ Lincoln et al then go on to report that:
‘ … one chronicler,
writing in 1172, recorded that this construction of Godfrey’s was an
‘imposing edifice’ – a veritable self contained community.’11
Who constituted this
‘veritable self contained community’? It was apparently:
‘ … well fortified
with its own walls, towers and battlements’.12 Now, the question
that must be asked is whether this building of Godfreys’ was ‘just’ an
Abbey. Does a simple abbey need towers and battlements? Yes, perhaps, if the
community had something of value within the walls. Or perhaps if the Abbey was
to be protected from outsiders. This may be the case. As we have just discussed
the Crusaders built a room called the ‘Chamber of Mysteries’. It is not
known what took place in this room, or what was in the room. It is this
structure which is asserted to be the ‘Abbey of Notre Dame du Mont de Sion’
– although archaeologists do not at any time record that this site was indeed
called by this title.
Lincoln et al give us
more accounts of this abbey. For example they tell us that:
‘...according to the
leading 19th century expert on the subject, the abbey was inhabited
by a chapter of Augustinian Canons … charged with serving the sanctuaries
under the direction of an abbot. The community assumed the double name of
‘Saint Marie du Mont Syon et du Saint Esprit’13
They also report the
following:
‘… another
historian, writing in 1698 is more explicit still: “There were in Jerusalem
… during the Crusades .. Knights attached to the Abbey of Notre Dame de Sion
– who took the name of ‘Chevaliers de L’Ordre de Notre Dame de Sion’14
In these statements then
– it is suggested that Knights were attached to the abbey/Church of the
Apostles. If Godfrey commanded the building of this abbey – could he not have
installed the Knights that this 1698 historian referred to? We know that Godfrey
had done this before. He had installed some Knights – to be exact 12 – at
the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
In a previous article I
have written I suggest that Godfreys
Knights of the Holy
Sepulchre could have had within its ranks the Order of Sion in the form of
certain Knightly nobles from particular families. I refer to the work of the 18th
century theologian J.Starck. He suggests that the Templars eventually became
able to appoint their own priests and that they did this with the permission of
the Pope. Starck says that these priests were the ‘inner order’ of the
actual Knights Templar, and that they were ‘directly descended from the Canons
of the Holy Sepulchre’.15 Because I can see that Godfrey, and the
nobility who accompanied him to the Holy Land, & later became Knights, were
one & the same Knights who he gathered around him at the Holy Sepulchre, who
later went onto become the inner and upper echelons of the Knights Templar –
does this support Starck’s supposition that the Templar priests were an
‘inner order’?
Would the inner order of
the Templars – who were descended from the Canons of the Holy Sepulchre,
constitute the same 20 canons, and 12 Knights that Godfrey is known to have
installed at the Holy Sepulchre? And if Godfrey installed Knights here – then
couldn’t he have installed Knights at the Abbey he built on Mount Sion?
Let me remind you of
Starcks comment about the secret group of Canons: ‘… (that they were) a
secret brotherhood within the brotherhood – forever united with the Templar
Order’16
So – if Godfreys
secret and hermetic group of Canon Knights were installed at the ancient
‘Church of the Apostles’ what else can we say about this chosen site?
What happened to the early apostles on Mount Sion?
Going back to
Pinkerfelds excavations – particularly in those original floor layers – he
found some niches, which corresponded to other early synagogues – which were
used to store arks for the Torah scrolls. This is explained by the fact that the
earliest Jewish Christians had not divorced themselves from their Judaic roots
or religion. In the early years of Christianity, as Pixner and others report –
there seemed to be a conflict between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile
Christians. The arguments always appear to be on points of doctrine, and
particularly on how Paul was interpreting the life of Jesus and the person that
he was. The Jewish Christians did not accept such doctrines as the Virgin Birth
and the divinity of Jesus. The Jewish Christians called their house of worship a
‘synagogue’ while the Gentile Christians – who wanted to distance
themselves from the Jewish Christians, adopted the word ‘ekklesia’, which
later became known simply as the Church. So – this Church of the Apostles was
a synagogue and can be said to be used by Jewish Christians.
Pixner, from his
excavations – reconstructed the history of the Church of the Apostles. He
found coins dating to the First Jewish Revolt (67-68AD) and concluded that the
synagogue, church and other structures were razed to the ground during this
Roman attack. Pixner finds support for his archaeological evidence in
contemporary writings of famous historians.
For example he reports
on Eusebius, a respected church historian who wrote that the early Jewish
Christains ‘escaped’ this attack by fleeing to Pella in the Trans-Jordan. He
tells us these early Christians were awaiting the return of Christ and when it
didn’t happen they returned back to Jerusalem and built their ‘sanctuary’
on the site of the Last Supper on Mount Sion. As Pixner recounts – this
particular group of Christians were allowed to return after the Roman
destruction of Jerusalem because the Romans recognized the validity of their
religion. It was the Gentile Christians who were persecuted as being
illegitimate. Their legitimacy only came hundreds of years later – when
Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official state religion of Rome. By
then a total and irreconcilable split had occurred between the 2 sets of
Christians.
It is here that the
early church, in effect becomes clearer. The Gentile Christians had embraced the
teachings of Paul – which allowed all non-Jews to become Christians. The
Jewish Christians did not accept this at all – and in fact fought bitterly
with the Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians seemed to have been known by
many different names including the Ebionites and the Nasoreans.
The early Jewish
Christians are said to have centred around a more primitive community built around James
– ‘the brother of the Lord’. Eusebius, as Pixner again furnishes for us,
tells us that this flourishing Judeo-Christian community was presided over by 13
bishops from this early church. It appears that it is this synagogue and
‘Church of the Apostles’ from whence the bishops came.
Another historian,
Bishop Epiphanius (315-403AD) records that there was in fact, on Mount Sion a
small church of God. He tells us that it is marked by the Upper Room
to which the disciples returned from the Mount of Olives – which can only mean
the Church of the Apostles. This
Church was already standing in 130AD and Pixner tells us:
‘… according to
Euthychius, the Judeo-Christians who fled to Pella to escape the Roman
destruction in 70 AD returned to Jerusalem in the 4th year of the emperor
Vespasian and built their church’17
After
the community returned to Jerusalem, they did so under the ‘leadership’ of
an individual known as Simon Bar Kleopha – who was said to be the second
Bishop of Jerusalem after the death of James, the brother of Jesus. This Simon
was also a descendant of the royal Davidic family.
Is Jesus’ family the first community of the church of the apostles on
Mount Sion?
Eusebius fills in a
little more information about this Simon. He was a known brother of Joseph of
Nazareth (in his ‘Church History’) which would make him a cousin of Jesus.
It appears then that
this site on Mount Sion was
frequented on many occasions by Jesus and his family members. Jesus held his
‘Last Supper’ here before he was arrested and crucified. Immediately
thereafter it seems, a Judeo-Christain group rallied – and after the
destruction of the Temple in 70AD – came back here to build their synagogue
& church. The leader of the community was first James, Jesus’ brother, but
later the post was filled by Simon Kleophas – who as we have just seen was a
cousin of Jesus. Then it appears that this Jewish community had an apostolic
succession from Jesus and that the leaders of the community were chosen because
they were of Jesus’ bloodline. In fact – as John the Baptist was the cousin
of Jesus – it’s probable that he was the leader of the Community until his
death when Jesus took over. (This idea of a family continuation becomes very
important later on in this article. And the fact that John the Baptist is
thought to have been at some time in his life a member of the Essene Community
is also of paramount importance. The link becomes the possible writings of this
community, Godfrey de Bouillon and the early Templar Knights.) Or perhaps Jesus
created a new ‘social’ movement? And as these family members also seem to
have been Bishops of the Community – perhaps Jesus sent out others to spread
the ‘message’. This could surely have been men as well as women (e.g Mary
Magdalene & Mary of Bethany – depending on whether you see these as two
separate people or not).
Some
observers believe that the Merovingain dynasty of Kings – who later came to
rule France – was related to this family of Jesus. We have to be quite clear
about this. It is indeed possible that members of Jesus’ family continued into
our modern times. Although sensationally described as possibly via a bloodline
from Jesus and Mary Magdalene – it is not necessary for a bloodline related to
Jesus to have survived in this manner. Many early church fathers discussed the
brothers and sisters of Jesus, and their survival after the death of Jesus. They
also refer to active participation of Roman authorities, which wanted to
eradicate the
Despoysni (the term given to
blood relatives of Jesus) and therefore, the Romans followed a policy ‘hunting
out’ these people and executing them. Records were also destroyed. And the
purpose of this policy? It was to quell the continued insurrection and Jewish
uprisings within Jerusalem – which eventually found its way back to this
family. Because Godfrey of Bouillon was a Merovingian descendant on his
mother’s side – could he trace his ancestors back to Jewish roots and family
members of Jesus? Is it possible that Godfrey, those Knights who came with him
on the First Crusade and that anonymous conclave who elected Godfrey as
Protector of the Holy Sepulchre, and who later allowed his brother Baldwin to
become King of Jerusalem, knew of the family connections of Godfrey and his
brother to the Merovingains and hence the family descendants of Jesus?
Would this in fact
explain the historical conundrum that historians often refer to? That being in
the face of stiff competition Godfrey was still elected ‘protector’ of the
Sepulchre and Jerusalem, when in fact a ‘better’ claim was forthcoming from
Raymond of Toulouse?
Did Godfrey have family
traditions and archives that everyone accepted as legitimate? Was Godfrey able
to support his claim on this basis?
And would not the Church
of the Apostles be the obvious place for Godfrey to build his Abbey with
fortified battlements? The place where Jesus seemed virtually to ‘live’ and
where a very important biblical event took place? (The Last Supper).
Was
this Mount Sion Community also an Essene community?
Pixner excavated Mount Sion on the western hill. He
relates how the historian Josephus had referred to the ‘Gate of the Essenes’
and had suggested that this gate was on Mount Sion. This inspired Pixner to
search for the Essene Gate. The Essenes, of course, are now notorious as the
supposed community who lived a solitary existence by the Dead Sea at Qumran. It
is this group who are believed to have been the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls
found in 1947. Pixner describes how he found the Essene Gate of Jerusalem. He
managed to find the gate and with it an undisturbed archaeological layer, which
contained pottery, shreds that dated to 70CE. Further excavations, along
Josephus’ supposed First Wall which the archaeologists found, and especially
adjacent to the Essene Gate allowed the team to excavate right down to a rock
scarp. They eventually found the ‘inner face’ of this First Wall – and
calculated that the wall must have been 8 feet wide. Pottery dated this wall to
the 8th and 7th century BCE. It was this wall that the Bible says
Hezekiah built – and once this wall was found Pixner was able to tell how the
Essene Gate was constructed. He said:
‘ ... to construct the
gate the builders made a breach into the existing wall. Then they dug a sewage
channel … that ran along the street and emptied into the Hinnom Valley, south
of Mount Sion. Limestone of fine workmanship covers the channel as it passes
beneath the gateway …’18
Other finds suggested
that a ‘middle sill’ for example, was built directly over the top of the
Essene gate which:
“ could have been part
of a gate in a makeshift wall built by the Jewish Christians who remained on
Mount Sion’’19
Pixner notes that the
Jewish Christians appear to have built a wall around their quarter and their
synagogue. Because the Jewish Christians were becoming more and more distant
from the Gentile Christians he speculated that they appear to have been
‘shunned as heretics’ by the Christians because the Jewish Christians would
not accept the doctrinal decision at the Council of Nicea in 325CE.
As Pixner observed, city
gates are usually named after the locations to which their streets lead. Hence
the Damascus Gate leads to Damascus. Did the Essenes Gate lead to an Essene
Quartre?
There is evidence that
the Essenes lived not only at Qumran but other places as well – such as
Jerusalem. (see the War Scroll, Josephus, Philo). The Essene Movement was
apparently made up of Zadokite kohanim, or priests. They trace their ancestry
back to the House of Zadok, a son of Aaron. When the Hasmonean kings took on the
role of priests as well – the Essene Zadokites could not accept this and
opposed their rule, especially when it came to Temple life. They therefore
removed themselves from such polluted institutions.
Because the Essenes had
such purity rules and did not want to mix with the heathen – they must have
had a section of the community that came up to their rigorous standards for
those laws of purity. In his archaeological excavations Pixner furnishes much
evidence to support this idea. He found ritual baths on Mount Sion within this
Essene settlement. The baths were as substantial and in the manner of those
found at Qumran. When Pixner presented this evidence to a leading Israeli
archaeologist he was told:
‘ … here you have
got excellent proof that the Essenes lived in this corner of Jerusalem …’20
What are we to make of
this proof? Proof beyond doubt that a substantial number of Essenes lived on
Mount Sion, and noted by ancient historians as the Essene Quartre and now
attested to archaeologically?
What are we to make of
the fact that here, Jesus himself celebrated his ‘Last Supper’ with his
disciples in the Essene Quartre? What are we to make of the evidence that the
earliest Jerusalem church, descended from Jesus – built a synagogue over the
Cenacle? What are we to make of this community of leaders and bishops of
Jerusalem that appear to have been selected because of their relationship to
Jesus as family members? If a substantial community of strict Jewish Essenes
lived on Mount Sion at the time of Jesus, and in fact who appear to play host to
Jesus – and allow him to commemorate his ‘Last Supper’ there before his
arrest, trial and crucifixion – is it not plausible to assume that Jesus had
strong links with the Essene Movement? After all – it is well known that the
Qumran community had a ritual communal meal – does this indeed correlate with
Jesus’ Last Supper? The fact that Jesus could even move freely among this
community suggests that Jesus was accepted in the Essene Communtiy here in
Jerusalem. Groups such as the Nazarenes and the Ebionites are certainly said to
contain members of Jesus’ family and so correlate with the Jewish-Christians
who lived on Mount Sion. Irenaeus tells us that these Ebionites denied the
divinity of Jesus, and that they denied the Virgin Birth. They used a Hebrew
version of the Gospel of Mathew. In the battles between the Jewish-Christians
and the Gentile-Christians we can see the split-taking place. St Epiphanius
tells us that these Ebionites were ‘heretics. I suggest that they were labeled
heretics because they would not accept coalescing Roman Orthodoxy. And that it
was these Ebionites Epiphanius tells us – who were associated with the Essenes.
Would this be with the Essenes who had their Quartre on Mount Sion too?
In a previous article I
discussed a group called the ‘Sons of the Prophets.’ Pliny suggested that
these ‘Sons of the Prophets’ stemmed directly from the Essenic tradition.
The ‘Sons of the Prophets’ were actually NAZIRITES and took the Nazirite
vow. Their origins coincide with Samuel and the origins of the Kingship and
Monarchy traditions in Israel. Other commentators, such as Basil, Gregory and
John Chrystostom suggested that the ‘Sons of the Prophets’ were the
precursors to the later hermits and monks, and that they were associated with
the Essenes and the Therapeutes of Egypt. Pliny, Josephus and Philo all agree
with these assertions too. If these assertions are accepted then a very
interesting picture can be seen regarding the Messiah of Israel and the rightful
King of Jerusalem, and the events in Palestine around the time of Jesus. If, as
seems possible, that from the ‘Sons of the Prophets’ came the Nazirites did
this lead to the formation of the Essenes? Did these ‘movements’ later
become associated with Jesus and John the Baptist?
The famous archaeologist
Yigael Yadin felt that Jesus was
a leader of a
‘schismatic faction of the Essenes’ Could this group of schismatics be the
Essenes based on Mount Sion? Is this why Jesus can move freely among them? If
John the Baptist was a more prophetic type of Essenes (as discussed by Josephus)
could Jesus have been trying something new? Or when Jesus took over the
‘mantle’ of the group after the death of his cousin John did he try to call
Jews to God, but after his death other family members then replaced Jesus? In
fact this raises another interesting sequence of events. When Jesus began
preaching in Israel – it is known that John the Baptist sent some of his
disciple to join his group. One of these disciples appears to include the
subsequent disciple known to posterity as the Beloved Disciple.21
Here we see a direct link between the Baptist, the Essenes and the Jesus
Movement, even if one did not want to accept the family relations. And from the
Beloved Disciple we move into Gnostic Theology and the theology of the Gospel of
John. This creates a whole new very interesting line of research involving the
identity of the Beloved Disciple and the Johanine Communtiy. In fact, it may
also shed light on why the Templars were known as the Knights of St John, and
why they were said to be ‘Johaninne Christians’. Were the trials and
tribulations of the ‘Movement’ and of the family of King David recorded for
posterity and which find form in the teachings of the Community? Did the Essenes
write their Scrolls, and teach from the Scrolls in the ways that they did –
exalting their members to be staunch followers of the Law of God, and to oppose
any usurpers, to prophecy and to proclaim a new covenant? Were Jesus’
Essenes reformers of the ‘new
covenant’?
Some archaeologists
believe that there was in fact a Scriptorium at Qumran – where the literate
members of the Community would write down, copy and preserve ancient teaching,
history and instruction. The result is the magnificent find of the Dead Sea
Scrolls in 1947. From these finds scholars found a huge amount of information,
which revolutionised the
thinking on the origins of Christianity.
If the Essene settlement
in Jerusalem was as substantial as the community at Qumran could the Jerusalem
Essenes have copied scrolls and kept written histories? As yet, we cannot say,
for the whole of the Mount Sion area has yet to be fully excavated.
However, it has been
suggested that when Godfrey and his precursor Templar Knights arrived in Jerusalem – various
courses’ of events took place, which led to legendary accounts regarding the
nature of those events. Persistently it is said that the Templars were actively
looking for something, treasure perhaps, and other artefacts. It is said variously that they found the Ark of
the Covenant, scrolls and knowledge (specifically said to be the ‘true’ life of Christ, and evidence
that he survived the Crucifixion). When Godfrey arrived at Mount Sion and
started to rebuild the abbey with fortified towers and battlements over the
‘Church of the Apostles’ he installed there his canons and knights – could
they have possibly found scrolls like the ones at the Dead Sea?
This does not sound so
far fetched. In 1897 Solomon Schechter found at the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Old
Cairo a Genizah. This synagogue was originally called the ‘Men of Israel’
and was built in 882 on the remains of a basilica of a Coptic church that had
been sold to the Jews. It became known too as the synagogue of Elijah (Elijah is
said to have been a member of the ‘Sons of the Prophets’ – the group to
above).
A Genizah is a hiding
place – and in this hiding place
Schechter found a hoard
of sacred books and scrolls of the Law.
Part of the hoard
consisted of medieval fragments that turned out to be copies of the Damascus
Document. The fragments have been dated to the 10th and 12th
centuries, and the manuscripts themselves now reside at Cambridge
University.
The Damascus Document is
a Qumran sectarian work. Also found with it were fragments of the Aramaic Levi,
and fragments of the original Hebrew of Ben Sira. It is not understood how the
‘Damascus Document’ of the Qumran Community could have ended up in Cairo.
Two theories have been put forward:
“one - that ‘they
have been copied in an unbroken manuscript tradition in Jewish circles into the
Middle Ages, or that they may have been recovered during the early middle ages
in caves in Palestine in discoveries like those mentioned by Origen and Timothy,
and then copied and passed along, perhaps in quasi-heretical ‘karaite’
circles until they ended up in Egypt”22
`Were not the Ebionites
or the early Jewish Christians called heretics? Could they have copied the
scrolls? Therefore it is probably to the successors of these early Jewish
Christians that we must find the traditions continuing. Were they guardians of
the ‘true’ Christian religion – as professed by the
Templars after them?
If future excavations
find a scriptorium on Mount Sion, this may perhaps suggest that the Crusaders
themselves found scrolls and holy books. Perhaps the Canons that Godfrey
installed, being priests, would have had the literary skills and motivation to
translate or copy them? The point is – that with the existence of
these medieval copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls this idea is not as far-fetched as
it seems. It is known that the
Jewish communities paid
the Crusaders money, and substantial sums at that, for the return of their Holy
Books, of which the Crusaders must have looted.
The Genizah manuscripts
preserve the following parts of the Damascus Document:
1) Admonition – this
includes the origins of the movement – starting with a survey of biblical
history.
2) The Laws
3) Communal Rules.
The Community Rule
describes an organisation much like the Essenes. They allow no free will, they advocate communal
ownership of property, and it gives similar rules for joining the community, it
prescribes an oath that must be taken by members and a common meal to be shared
by all ceremonially pure members? Perhaps this was what the
Essene settlement on Mount Sion was doing when the Last Supper took place?
Another possibility that
occurred to me was that if the code that Dr Hugh Schonfield found in some of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, and which were later used by the Templars – if it could be
shown that this Atbash Cipher was the exact same cipher used in both instances
this may in some way support the idea that the Templars did get access to some
of the Dead Sea Scrolls before modern humanity ever knew about the Scrolls
existence. And who were the early Templars if not Godfrey de Bouillon and his
Knights and Canons?
If any thing like this
did happen – it might help us to understand why the Templars were allowed to
appoint their own priests. If Godfrey and his family (for example his brother
Baldwin) searched for ‘treasure’ perhaps this is what passed into the hands
of the inner order of the Knights Templar.
I
hope this short article makes readers aware that the possibility exists of
Godfrey and his Knights finding something in the Holy Land that related to his
family ancestry, in particular his Merovingian roots. In response to his
successful find – Godfrey may than have wanted to form a ‘hermetic and
alchemical’ society which indeed might have existed up to modern times. This
group may indeed have been ‘guardians’ of knowledge or treasure relating to
Jesus and the origins of Christianity. We must consider the fact that Godfrey
and his family – once installed as rulers of Jerusalem and with the help of
their Templar creation – eventually had direct access to the three major areas
of Jerusalem which, were all associated with hoards of treasure. They were –
the Temple Mount, Mount Sion itself and the Holy Sepulchre.
References:
1 Hamblett,
S (2003) The First Templars. The Templar History Magazine
2 Selwood,
D (1999) Knights of the Cloister: Templars and Hospitallers in Central Southern
Occitania 1100 – 1300, pp 135. He discusses the fact that Count Fulk of Anjou
became a ‘confrater’ of the Templars in 1120 –
1121. He suggests that this is
one year after the foundation of the Order, whereas William of Tyre says no new
members were admitted to the ranks of the Templars for nine years after their
foundation. Is the date of creation then 1111 – 1112? Another contemporary
chronicler, Simon of St Bertin had the following to say under the entry of 1099:
‘While he (Godfrey) was reigning magnificently some of the (Crusaders) had
decided not to return to the shadows of the world ….On the advice of the
princes of Gods army (i.e the First Crusaders (ed) they vowed themselves to Gods
Temple, under this rule: they avowed to renounce the world, give up personal
goods, free themselves to pursue purity, and lead a communal life wearing a poor
habit, only using arms to defend the land of attacks of the … pagans when
necessity demanded’. This translation was made by Helen Nicholson, and it
virtually supports my supposition that the Templars were created by Godfrey de
Bouillon in 1099. The mechanics of how Godfrey achieved this is discussed in ‘The
First Templars’.
3 For
example see the accounts of Mathew of Edessa, an Armenian chronicler, who
reported: ‘In 1100 Godfrey, leader of the Franks, came with his army to
Caesarea of Philippi…… the Muslim leaders went to meet him on the pretext of
making peace: they bought supplies and served them in his presence. Godfrey
accepted and unsuspectingly ate the dishes they presented, which were poisoned.
He died several days later along with forty other people’. From Chronicles of
the Crusade (1989) edited by Elizabeth Hallam, p 95.
4 If
you are willing to accept the date of the Templar creation as 1118, which is
given in some sources.
5 Usually
associated with an event at Gisors in France.
6 Markale,
J (2003) The Templar Treasure at Gisors, p 126. He acknowledges that this letter
has not been authenticated and certainly requires further research.
7 See
historians such as Runciman, who also suggests that
occupation of this site was the cause of some tension between Godfrey and
others.
8 Pinkerfeld.
J (1990) ‘Davids Tomb. Notes on the History of the Building’ Cited in Pixner,
B (1990) Church of the Apostles found on Mount Sion’. Biblical Archaeology
Review. May/June 1990.
9 Lincoln,H,
Baigent,M & Leigh, R (1996) Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
10 Jesus
himself referred to grapes, vines and viticulture – perhaps suggesting his
royal Davidic bloodline.
11 Lincoln
et al (1996) Holy Blood, Holy Grail, pp 112-113.
12 Ibid
13 Ibid
14 Ibid
15 Cited
in Lincoln,H & Haagensens E (2000) The Templars Secret Island. Windrush
Press.
16 Ibid
17 Pixner,
B (1990) ‘The Church of the Apostles Found on Mount Sion’ Biblical
Archaeology Review
18 Pixner,
B (1997) Jerusalems Essene Gateway: Where the Community Lived in Jesus’
Time’. Biblical Archaeology Review 19 Ibid 20 Ibid 21 See such works as
those completed by Raymond E. Brown 22 Davila, JR (2001) The Damascus Document
and the Community Rule. Found in a summary of a lecture Mr Davila gave on 12th February
2001. 23
19 Ibid
20 Ibid
21 See
such works as those completed by Raymond E. Brown
22 Davila,
JR (2001) The Damascus Document and the Community Rule. Found in a summary of a
lecture Mr. Davila gave on 12th February 2001.
By Sandy Hamblett