A Huge Pain trying to find a history of Hugues de Payens

by Damien F. Mackey C12th AD or time of the Apostles? 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 of it, 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 Hugues (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 Hugues de Payens, have actually occurred in the time of the Apostles, and not in a supposed 1118 AD? It is the purpose of this article to explore that unconventional idea. Hugues de Payen’s historical obscurity Theoclete, a “living Christ”, is Jesus (and/or the Holy Trinity), and Hugues de Payens represents Saint Peter, his close friend, André de Montbard, representing Andrew, Peter’s brother, with the other early Templars being the band of Apostles. The purpose of this article is to show that the incident of the founding of the Knights Templar, the encounter between Theoclete and Hugues de Payens, is simply a later appropriation (a European one) of the entrustment of the Church, by Jesus Christ himself, to Saint Peter, who was formerly a follower of St. John the Baptist. In other words, Theoclete, described as the “living Christ”, is Jesus (and/or the Holy Trinity), and Hugues de Payens represents Saint Peter, his close friend, André de Montbard, representing Andrew, Peter’s brother, with the other early Templars being the band of Apostles. Some of the words (speeches) of Hugues de Payens can be found to match those of Saint Peter. At this stage, though, I can find no relationship between their actual names. But Hugues himself is historically problematical, anyway. His historical obscurity reminds me of what I have found to have been the case with the so-called ‘Ionian’ (Greek) philosophers, and others, about some of whose lives we know virtually nothing, with little or no extant writings, leading me to conclude firmly that these were non-historical beings, often biblically-based (composite) characters. See e.g. my articles: Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy https://www.academia.edu/4105845/Re_Orienting_to_Zion_the_History_of_Ancient_Philosophy and: Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction (5) Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu At the site: https://erenow.net/postclassical/the-real-history-behind-the-templars/3.php we read just how obscure is this enigmatic character, Hugues de Payens (or Payns), he also being known as “Hugo de Peanz”, or “Hugo de Pedans”, or “Hugonis de Peans”, or even “Hugh de Paganis”. (My emphasis added to following): 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. …. 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. …. 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. …. 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. …. 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.” …. 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. …. 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. …. 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. …. Their son, Thibaud, became abbot of the monastery of La Colombe….. Hugh may have had two other children, Guibuin and Isabelle, but I don’t find the evidence for them completely convincing. …. 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. [End of quote] What we find in this mix is that there is no known contemporary biography of Hugh de Payens. Nor did any medieval writers ever mention having read one. Both Hugh’s place of birth and his parentage are unknown. While the above would suggest that he was French, he is variously known as Ugo of Nocera de' Pagani in Campania, southern Italy. There is a lack of evidence for the supposed two children he is thought to have fathered. All records appear to have been either lost or destroyed. This all conspires to make of Hugh de Payens, in historical terms, a very shadowy figure indeed. Legends about Hugh fit well the character of Saint Peter. For example: … he resolved to live the life of a monk, owning nothing. … 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 …. Certainly, Peter bore a sword - though he was not a Knight - and he was prepared to use it (John 18:10). And so we have: “The Falchion or Malchus, the rarest medieval sword”. https://br.pinterest.com/pin/753860425100347974/ Did not Peter draw his sword to cut off the ear of one Malchus? John 18:10: “Then Simon Peter drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus”. The extraordinary notion that the Knights Templar arose “to save souls … by protecting pilgrims travelling the Holy Land” (https://theconversation.com/knights-templar-still-loved-by-conspiracy-theorists-900-years-on-128582), may be due to the Apostles protecting pilgrim souls in the Holy Land by showing them “the Way”, first announced by the prophet Isaiah, but pointing to, appropriately, John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1-3): In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near’. This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the Way for the Lord, make straight paths for him’.” When Jesus came, He identified himself as this ‘Way” (John 14:6): ‘I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’. Theoclete ‘the living Christ’ According to the traditional view: https://warsoftherosoes.blogspot.com/2017/12/johannite-order.html "At the time of Hugh de Payers, Theocletes was the living "Christ" of the Johannites. He communicated to the founders of the Temple the ideas of a sovereign priesthood of dedicated and initiated men united for the purpose of overthrowing the bishops of Rome and the establishment of universal civil liberty. The secret object of the Johannites was the restoration of the esoteric tradition and the gathering of mankind under the one eternal religion of the world. " - Orders of the Quest, The Holy Grail (Adept Series) by Manly P. Hall pg 31 This is all later legend. Returning to the 2016 article, we read: 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 The acquisition of the Johannite Church by the Knights Templar was later alluded to in Isis Unveiled by the nineteenth century esotericist Madam Blavatsky. While claiming to have learned it from ancient Kabbalistic records, Blavatsky stated: The true version of the history of Jesus and early Christianity was supposedly imparted to Hughes de Payens, by the Grand-Pontiff of the Order of the Temple [the Johannite sect], one named Theoclete, after which it was learned by some Knights in Palestine, from the higher and more intellectual members of the St. John sect, who were initiated into its mysteries. Freedom of intellectual thought and the restoration of one universal [Gnostic] religion was their secret object. Sworn to the vow of obedience, poverty, and chastity, they were at first the true Knights of John the Baptist, crying in the wilderness and living on wild honey and locusts. Such is the tradition and the true Kabbalistic version. Mackey’s comment: Whilst “Theoclete”, Jesus Christ, “the Truth”, did impart the true knowledge to his ‘knights’ (Apostles) in Palestine, who had been previously followers of St. John, the gnostic religion and Johannism of the Knights Templar, with which they have become associated, was a later devolution, as some of the early Christians fell away into apostasy and wrong thinking. Blavatsky’s history was echoed by no lesser authority than Pope Pius IX, the nineteenth century pope, who made a public statement regarding the Templars and the beginning of the Johannite “heresy” in his Allocution of Pio Nono against the Free Masons: The Johannites ascribed to Saint John the foundation of their Secret Church, and the Grand Pontiffs of the Sect assumed the title of Christos, Anointed or Consecrated, and claimed to have succeeded one another from Saint John by an uninterrupted succession of pontifical powers. He who, at the period of the foundation of the Order of the Temple, claimed these imaginary prerogatives was named Theoclete; he knew Hughes de Payens, he initiated him into the Mysteries and hopes of his pretended church; he seduced him by the notions of Sovereign Priesthood and Supreme royalty, and finally designated him as his successor. Two Doctrines The Heretical Johannite Teachings Upon receipt of the Johannite lineage, Hughes de Payens and his Knights Templar received documents and scrolls that revealed many mysteries that had been lost, hidden, or destroyed because of their heretical content. Some of the documents revealed that John the Baptist had been born within the Essene sect of the Nasoreans or Nazarenes, which was created when an ancient Gnostic sect from the East, the baptizing Mandeans, arrived in the Holy Land and united with the Essenes. Mackey’s comment: For the scriptural identification of the Essenes, see e.g. my article: Puzzling why those very prolific writing Essenes are not ever mentioned in Bible. Part One: Who exactly were the mysterious Essenes? (4) Puzzling why those very prolific writing Essenes are not ever mentioned in Bible. Part One: Who exactly were the mysterious Essenes? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Mandeans apparently continued the Johannine legacy, but without the requisite conversion to Jesus Christ that John the Baptist had intended for his followers. Knights Templar – antiquity re-cast as mediaeval times The early ‘Templars’, so-called, were the biblical Jews, and later Christians, in Jerusalem. The supposed origins of the order, Knights Templar, I have shown to be shrouded in the deepest obscurity, with its founder, Hugues de Payens, having no contemporary biography. What our friend Hugues does have in spades, though, is an abundance of variations on his name, mostly French, but one suggesting instead a southerly Italian origin. This reminds me of Christopher Columbus, also having name variations, who, they say, may have been Italian, Spanish, or Portuguese. Hugh appears to have had, like Melchizedek, no known father or mother, and there is poor evidence, too, for the two children he is thought to have fathered. The Templars are said to have arisen from a long string of Patriarchs, all designated “John”, about seventy successive ones of these, commencing with John the Baptist. Mary Magdalene is even thrown into this mix. This long patrimony - which has no actual basis in history - is estimated to stretch all the way from New Testament times to 1118 AD, when the supposed Johannine Patriarch, “Theoclete”, handed over the mantle of authority to Hugh de Payens in Jerusalem. Thus was born, so they say, the Order of the Temple of Solomon. By the way, the Bible never speaks of a Temple of Solomon. It is always the Temple of Yahweh. This whole legendary thing is basically, as I have determined, the story of the founding of the Church with the Apostles, but re-cast later in European (Frankish) terms. Unsurprisingly, then, the patriarchal Theoclete, has been described as “the living Christ”. There is an obvious Trinitarian element here, Theo (God the Father), Clete (Holy Spirit), Christ. The Johannine element arises form the fact that Jesus Christ, though a transcendent God-Man, had, owing to his Kenosis (see e.g. Philippians 2:7), allowed John to baptise Him. Hugh de Payens represents Saint Peter, whom Hugh resembles both in his character, as we have found, and even in some of his words and exhortations. Templar Beginning and End My estimation of Templar origins, along with another thesis of mine, that the story of the supposed demise of the Templars in mainland Europe, on October 13 of 1307 AD, is largely an appropriation of the ancient (BC) Book of Esther: Book of Esther key to Knights Templar and 1307 AD https://www.academia.edu/43725074/Book_of_Esther_key_to_Knights_Templar_and_1307_AD has enabled me to fix the origins of the Templars (1118 AD) back in New Testament times, and the demise of a major part of the Templars (1307 AD) even further back, in the biblical Medo-Persian era. These are two typical cases of that strange phenomenon, of which I have often written, of real BC histories and events having been projected - in a garbled fashion, adapted to modern terms - into a fake AD ‘history’. To recall just a few of many of which I have written: Chedorlaomer of the time of the Patriarch Abram (c. 2000 BC, conventional dating - not mine) re-cast as the Frankish King Chlodomer; Judith of Bethulia re-cast as the Jewish Gudit (or Judith) of 900 AD Ethiopia; the biblical Nehemiah re-cast as Nehemiah at the time of the Prophet Mohammed (the latter being another of those anachronistic, biblical composites). And, most relevant to the Templars and the Crusades, and their foe, the so-called Seljuk Turks, we have found that the model for much of this were the Maccabees and the Seleucid Greeks. On this, see e.g. the following series: Maccabeans and Crusaders, Seleucids and Saltukids (Seljuks) https://www.academia.edu/37838441/Maccabeans_and_Crusaders_Seleucids_and_Saltukids_Seljuks_ Maccabeans and Crusaders, Seleucids and Saltukids (Seljuks). Part Two: Maccabees models for Teutonic Order https://www.academia.edu/37848593/Maccabeans_and_Crusaders_Seleucids_and_Saltukids_Seljuks_Part_Two_Maccabees_models_for_Teutonic_Order Something of a verification of my adventurous line of thinking here can be gauged from the following comment by a reader: “This was interesting because I work on the Teutonic Order's crusade in Lithuania, and in the Order's Latin chronicles the Maccabees are the main model”. And why is supposedly mediaeval Templar architecture described as Romanesque? “The name gives it away–Romanesque architecture is based on Roman architectural elements”: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/medieval-world/romanesque-art/beginners-guide-romanesque/a/a-beginners-guide-to-romanesque-architecture “… relating to a style of architecture which prevailed in Europe c. 900–1200, although sometimes dated back to the end of the Roman Empire (5th century)”: https://www.google.com.au/search?safe=strict&q=Dictionary&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAO Given the Knights Templar’s legendary wealth and inventiveness, why would they not have developed their own unique architectural style? Clearly, then (at least so I think), the early ‘Templars’ were actually the biblical Jews, and later Christians, in Jerusalem. Their - as well as the Cistercians’ - likenesses to the ancient Essenes have been well demonstrated by Alan Butler and Stephan Dafoe in their fascinating book, The Knights Templar Revealed (2006). The Essenes may have at least their spiritual origins tracing back as far as the time of Elijah, who much resembles the founder of the Benedictines (see my): St Benedict and Elijah https://www.academia.edu/37584227/St_Benedict_and_Elijah an order whose inception is considered to have pre-dated that of the Templars. It is thought that the Essenes may have taken their name from the Hasidean warriors at the time of the Maccabees, hence the military aspect. Later, the Johannines, those who did not follow the Baptist’s counsel to embrace the Christ, would have morphed into sects such as the Mandeans and other gnostic groups, from whence evolved and arose the modern Templar groups and the Freemasons. Some of this intrigue, though, is extremely recent. See my article: Understanding the Priory of Sion https://www.academia.edu/43420461/Leonardo_da_Vinci_is_Archimedes_like_Part_Three_Understanding_the_Priory_of_Sion