Ancient Greek Repetitions?

by Damien F. Mackey Has the list of Greek archons been duplicated? There may be duplications in the list of ancient Greek archons. But there may also be characters listed there who did not even belong to Greece. I have already argued that Solon, appointed archon in the Athenian government in c. 600 BC, was in fact a non-historical figure, based largely upon the sage King Solomon of Israel: Solomon and Sheba https://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba?sm=b but whose supposed laws and reforms appear to owe much to another famous Jew of antiquity, Nehemiah. (See, on this, “Two reformers compared: Solon of Athens and Nehemiah of Jerusalem”, E. Yamauchi and G. Rendsburg). Now Clark Whelton of NY has just alerted me to an article of historical revision by professor Gunnar Heinsohn: https://q-mag.org/rome-and-jerusalem-a-stratigraphy-based-chronology-of-the-ancient-world.html Rome and Jerusalem - a stratigraphy-based chronology of the Ancient World in which the author runs these intriguing parallels between supposedly separate Greek archons: 462 BC A KONON becomes archon in Athens. 398 BC A KONON tries to win Akhaemenid Artaxerxes II for Athens. The pressure by KONON of Athens to stop Sparta’s assistance for Egypt’s rebellion against Akhaemenids in 395 BC is a duplication of 460 BC (time of a KONON in Athens) when the Akhaemenid Satrap Achaimenes is murdered in Egypt. 460 BC Walls are built in Athens. 393 BC Walls are built in Athens. 459 BC A PHILOKLES becomes archon in Athens. 392 BC A PHILOKLES becomes archon in Athens. 450 BC Athenians win at Salamis (Cyprus). 384 BC Ceasefire is negotiated at Salamis (Cyprus). 449 BC Peace of KALLIAS strengthens “1st“Attic Maritime Alliance. 377 BC A KALLIAS is archon in Athens; “2nd” Attic Maritime Alliance). 424 BC OCHOS (Darius II) crowned after brief rule of predecessor. 358 BC OCHOS (Artaxerxes III) crowned after brief rule of predecessor. 419 BC An Archias becomes archon in Athens. 345 BC An Archias becomes archon in Athens. ….

Origins of the Knights Templar

Part One: C12th AD or time of the Apostles? by Damien F. Mackey Acts 19:1-7 describes a group of twelve disciples met by St. Paul in Corinth who had not yet evolved from John to Jesus Christ (and the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete) as had the Apostles. Whilst there can be differing versions and variants, a typical account of the beginnings of the Knights Templar will go something like what we read here in this 2016 article: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-important-events/secrets-knights-templar-knights-john-baptist-005088 Secrets of the Knights Templar: The Knights of John the Baptist Soon after the Knights Templar founded their order in the Holy Land in 1118 AD they assimilated into a very ancient gnostic tradition and lineage known as the Johannite Church, which had been founded by St. John the Baptist more than a thousand years previously. The ruling patriarch of this ancient tradition when the Templar Order first formed was Theoclete. The Johannites and St. John the Baptist Theoclete met the first Templar grandmaster, Hughes de Payens and then passed the mantle of his Johannite authority to him. Hughes de Payens thus became John #70 in a long line of gnostic Johannites (the “Johns”) that had begun with John the Baptist and included: Jesus, John the Apostle, and Mary Magdalene. John was not just a name, but also an honorific title meaning “He of Gnostic Power and Wisdom.” It is related to the Sanskrit Jnana (pronounced Yana), meaning “Gnosis.” …. [End of quote] This, the “Johns”, reminds me of an English taxi driver whom I encountered at the time of my arrival in Sydney (Australia) - from Hobart via the US, Canada and Britain - in the late 70’s, who had the British quirk (at least) in those days of calling every male, “John”, including me. Immediately after telling me, “John”, what a cosmopolitan and welcoming city Sydney was, he had his head out the window loudly abusing a passing driver. Speaking of loose heads, St. John the Baptist, referred to above, lost his (Matthew 14:10-11), had to, in fact, according to some theologians, because the great man, John the Baptist, was “the head of the Old Testament”. Symbolically, then, it was necessary for this “head” to be removed in order to make way for the New Testament (Matthew 11:11): ‘Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he’. John the Baptist, the purpose of whose whole self-effacing life was to prepare the way for ‘the One who was to come’ (Luke 7:19), would have been horrified, would have rolled in his grave, had he learned that that ‘One’ was actually subservient to himself. Once Jesus had arrived, John’s career was ‘complete’ (John 3:29): ‘The friend who attends the Bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the Bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete’. Some sects though, e.g. the Gnostic-like Mandaeans, seem to have perpetuated a mistaken view that John the Baptist, not Jesus, was the true Messiah. There appears to be much of this sort of mentality, too, in accounts of the supposedly “Johannite” Templars. Acts 19:1-7 describes a group of twelve disciples met by St. Paul in Corinth who had not yet evolved from John to Jesus Christ (and to the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete) as had the Apostles: While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ They answered, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit’. So Paul asked, ‘Then what baptism did you receive?’ ‘John’s baptism’, they replied. Paul said, ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Jesus’. On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all. This is already very much like the first Knights Templar of tradition: a group of pious men, followers of the Baptist, who, like Hugh (Hughes) de Payens and his first band of holy men, had an encounter with a ‘Theoclete’ (= God-Holy Spirit). Might it be even more than this? Might this ‘Theoclete’ event, the encounter with the so-called Hugh de Payens, have actually occurred in the time of the Apostles, and not in a supposed 1118 AD? It is the purpose of this series to explore that unconventional idea. Part Two: The purpose of this series will be to show that the incident of the founding of the Knights Templar, the encounter between Theoclete and Hugh de Payens, is simply a later appropriation (a European one) of the entrustment of the Church to Saint Peter, formerly a follower of John the Baptist, by Jesus Christ himself. In other words, Theoclete, a "living Christ", is Jesus (or the Holy Trinity) and Hugh de Payens represents Saint Peter, his closest friend, Andre de Montbard, representing Andrew, Peter's brother, and the other first Templars being the band of Apostles. Some of the words (speeches) of Hugh de Payens can be found to match those of Saint Peter. But Hugh himself is historically problematical: https://erenow.net/postclassical/the-real-history-behind-the-templars/3.php Home Post-classical history History Behind the Templars Page 3 CHAPTER TWO Hugh de Payns Amid all the different theories about the beginning of the Templars there is one constant. The founder of the order was a certain Hugh de Payns, knight. Some say he and a few comrades first approached the patriarch of Jerusalem, asking to live a monastic life in the city. Others report the men went to Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem. Still others suggest that it was Baldwin who asked Hugh and his friends to act as protectors to the many pilgrims coming from the West to Jerusalem. In all of these, the main constant is Hugh. But who was Hugh? Where is Payns? What was his background and who were his family? What could have led him to devote his life to fighting for God? Despite his importance, even in his own day, a contemporary biography of Hugh has never been found. Nor has any medieval writer even mentioned reading one. I find this interesting because it indicates to me the uneasiness people felt about the idea of warrior monks. Other men who founded orders, like Francis of Assisi or Robert of Arbrissel, had biographies written about them immediately after their deaths. The main purpose of this was to have an eyewitness account of their saintliness in case they were suggested for canonization. Of the little that was written about Hugh, nothing was negative, but there .... does not seem to have been any sense that he was in line for sainthood. So how do we find out more about this man who started it all? The first clue we have is from the chronicler William of Tyre. He says that Hugh came from the town of Payns, near Troyes in the county of Champagne.1 William also mentions Hugh’s companion, Godfrey of St. Omer, in Picardy, now Flanders. These two men seem, in William’s eyes, to be cofounders of the Templars, but it was Hugh who became the first Grand Master. This may have been through natural leadership, but it also may have been because Hugh had the right connections. Payns is a small town in France, near Troyes, the seat of the counts of Champagne. It is situated in a fertile farmland that even then had a reputation for its wine. It’s not known when Hugh was born, or who his parents were. The first mention of him in the records is from about 1085-1090, when a “Hugo de Pedano, Montiniaci dominus,” or Hugh of Payns, lord of Montigny, witnessed a charter in which Hugh, count of Champagne, donated land to the abbey of Molesme.2 In order to be a witness, our Hugh had to have been at least sixteen. So he was probably born around 1070. Over the next few years, four more charters of the count are witnessed by a “Hugo de Peanz” or “Hugo de Pedans.” Actually, the place name is spelled slightly differently each time it appears.3 It is also spelled “Hughes.” Spelling was much more of a creative art back then. However, it’s fairly certain that these are all the same man. These show that Hugh was part of the court of the count of Champagne, perhaps even related to him. The last of these charters in Champagne is from 1113. The next time we find the name Hugh de Payns, it is in 1120 in Jerusalem. This is highly suggestive, as Hugh is witness to a charter confirming the property of the Order of St. John (the Hospitallers).4 So now we have confirmation of the story that Hugh was in Jerusalem in 1119-1120 to found the Templars outside of later histories. However, it is not until five years later that Hugh witnesses a charter in which he lists himself as “Master of the Knights Templar.”5 In between, he is witness to a donation made in 1123 by Garamond, patriarch of Jerusalem, to the abbey of Santa Maria de Josaphat. Here Hugh is listed only by the name “Hugonis de Peans.” There is no mention of the Templars and Hugh is near the end of the list of witnesses, showing that he was not one of the most important people present.6 How did Hugh get to Jerusalem? What happened in those five years between witnessing a charter as a layman and becoming Master of the Templars? We can guess, but unless more information appears, we can’t know for certain. The most likely reason for Hugh to have gone to the Holy Land was in the company of Count Hugh. The count made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, his second, in 1114.7 There is no list of his companions, but it would fit that Hugh de Payns would have been in his company. Hugh was already among those at court often enough to be a witness to the count’s donations and therefore one of his liege men. But he must have been released from his obligation to his lord for, when Count Hugh returned home, Hugh de Payns remained in Jerusalem. Why? Again, Hugh hasn’t left anything to tell us. Was it as penance for his sins? Most pilgrimages were intended as a quest for divine forgiveness. Many people have insisted that knights only went to the Holy Land for wealth, either in land or goods looted from those they conquered. But in Hugh’s case, once he decided to remain in Jerusalem he resolved to live the life of a monk, owning nothing. It is even more surprising because Hugh apparently left a wife and at least one young child behind. His wife was named Elizabeth. She was probably from the family of the lords of Chappes, land quite close to Payns.8 Their son, Thibaud, became abbot of the monastery of La Colombe.9Hugh may have had two other children, Guibuin and Isabelle, but I don’t find the evidence for them completely convincing. 10 In principle, any married person wishing to join a religious order had to have the permission of his or her spouse and that spouse was also to join a convent or monastery. In practice, however, this didn’t happen that often, especially among the nobility. When Sybilla of Anjou, countess of Flanders, remained in Jerusalem to join the nuns at the convent of Bethany in 1151, her husband, Thierry, returned to Flanders and continued his life.11 Sometimes, the spouse remarried. It is not known what happened to Elizabeth. Perhaps she died before Hugh left Champagne. Hugh did not abandon the place of his birth. When he returned to Europe to drum up support for the Knights of the Temple, he received his greatest support in Champagne. It was at the Council of Troyes, only a few miles south of Payns, that the order received official papal approval. There were also several Templar commanderies near Payns. One of them, at least, was founded by Hugh. Donations continued to the Templars of Payns until the early fourteenth century, just before the arrest of the Templars.12 Many of the “donations” are clearly sales under another name, as when in 1213, a knight named Henri of Saint-Mesmin gave two fields near the preceptory to the Templars of Payns. In return, the Templars gave Henri fourteen livres. In another case, Odo of Troyes “gave” the Templars some mills. Odo was about to leave on Crusade and so the Templars gave him forty livres with the promise of twenty more when (or if ) Odo returned. However, after founding the commandery, it appears that Hugh donated nothing more to it. He returned to Jerusalem, probably around 1130, and died in 1136. May 24 is the traditional date. The records we have from the early twelfth century give no more information on Hugh de Payns. Of course, much has been lost over the years. Some of the Templar records in Europe were destroyed after the dissolution of the order at the Council of Vienne. This doesn’t seem to have been because the information was secret or heretical, simply that it was no longer needed and the parchment could be scraped and reused. The main Templar archives, which might have had more information on Hugh, were not in Europe, however, but in Jerusalem. They were moved to Acre and then Cyprus, where they were in 1312. War and conquest ensured that anything left was scattered or destroyed. Perhaps there was once a biography of sorts of Hugh de Payns. It seems to me that someone would have wanted to tell the world more about him. What we can deduce from his actions is that he must have been a strong-willed man, very devout and with the ability to convince others to see and follow his vision. He does not seem to have been particularly well educated. Nothing in his life or background would indicate that he was involved in anything of a mystical nature, nor that he founded the Templars to protect some newly discovered treasure or secret, as modern myths state. Hugh de Payns was most likely a deeply devout layman who wanted to serve God by protecting His pilgrims and His land. Hugh used his wealth, such as it was, and his family and social connections to make this possible. Nothing more. But, before that, some background will be needed.