Treasures of the Temple in Jerusalem and the Knights Templar

[Histry Nerd]

Yesterday evening, the National Geographic Channel ran a show about the Knights Templar, their origins, history, and some of the mysteries surrounding them. For the most part, I found the piece entertaining and educational, if a bit sensational.

But one part made my skeptic's ears perk up: the discussion of the "treasure" the Templars are said to have found in the Temple in Jerusalem, or been led to by clues they found therein. Apparently, when Rome reconquered Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jews managed to secret away most of the temple's treasures, recording their hiding places on copper tablets. The speculation offered by the show's narrator was that the Templars found one of the tablets and used it to find the treasure, and more importantly found something among the Temple treasures that contributed to the immense power they enjoyed in support of, and perhaps over, the Church.

It was the items they are supposed to have found that really made me take notice: the head of John the Baptist, the Holy Grail, and/or documents detailing the descendants of Jesus (a la The Da Vinci Code).

To me, the inclusion of these three objects in a list of treasures from the Temple in Jerusalem makes no sense. They would have been of inestimable value to first-century Christians--but why would Jews of the same period feel the need to safeguard them, presumably at risk to themselves and their temple? Why would a rabbi in 70 A.D. care at all about the head of John the Baptist? Why would he recognize the Holy Grail as an important object, or consider the bloodline of Jesus more important than other records of heredity?

Did anyone else see the Templars program? I'd love to know what you all thought of it, and whether I missed something. Or if you didn't see it, what you think about this issue. The nerd in me needs to try to figure this out--it's not even part of my current WIP, although I am toying with including the Templars in a future work.

Thanks for your help!
HN

[pdr]

I'm sorry I'm not in the US so I didn't see the programme.

I understood, though, that the 'Templar treasure' was Jesus' shroud and the cloth that had been over his face. Source? An archaeologist in charge of the emergency dig we were doing in the '60s on a Knights' Templar Monastery site and he cheerfully said he thought this 'treasure, if ever found, would be the usual load of fakes'!

[Histry Nerd]

I'm sorry I'm not in the US so I didn't see the programme.

I understood, though, that the 'Templar treasure' was Jesus' shroud and the cloth that had been over his face. Source? An archaeologist in charge of the emergency dig we were doing in the '60s on a Knights' Templar Monastery site and he cheerfully said he thought this 'treasure, if ever found, would be the usual load of fakes'!

Thanks, pdr. Boy, does that beat the hell out of any TV program! "Emergency dig" sounds like it has an interesting story behind it.

Was that the Shroud of Turin? I hadn't heard of a connection with the Templars. Of course, I've never really tried to research the Shroud....

HN

[pdr]

HN. Lots of fun. My school encouraged us in our last two years to be volunteer labour at the 'dig' at our city castle. It was fascinating and the archaeologist put those of us who were keen on the list for emergency digs. So I continued as dig labour during my university holidays.

Emergency digs were usually sites about to be built on or ploughed and sown where something interesting had been found. There was a time limit and we got paid one whole £ a day. The Knights Templar site was exciting because we found the graveyard and had fun watching the 'real' archaeologists cleaning the skeletons in their graves. Most were very small but one had been a very big man, over six feet.

You can still be labour at British digs but now it's so popular you pay them to work on a site!

I'll have to check but I don't think the Shroud of Turin, which is a 14/13thC(?) fake was the same as the Templar one.

[Evaine]

Surely John the Baptist was considered to be a Jewish prophet? Just a thought as to why the Temple authorities would want his head preserved. After all, he was annoying Herod Antipas because he'd broken the Jewish laws about legal marriage.

[TeddyG]

Apparently, when Rome reconquered Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jews managed to secret away most of the temple's treasures, recording their hiding places on copper tablets.

1. why would Jews of the same period feel the need to safeguard them, presumably at risk to themselves and their temple?
2. Why would a rabbi in 70 A.D. care at all about the head of John the Baptist?
3. Why would he recognize the Holy Grail as an important object, or consider the bloodline of Jesus more important than other records of heredity?


I did not see the program but if you reported it correctly sounds like a bunch of gobbdleygook mixed together with historical fiction to me.

Answer to Question One:
There is a legend, and that is the word - legend - that the Jews managed to hide away the Temple Treasures at the beginning (not the end) of the Second Temple Era (515 BCE). There is also a very cloudy meniton that the prophet Jeremiah hid away many of the Temple utensils during the end of the First Temple Era, and buried them underneath the Temple.

In order to understand thi, one must understand the "theological significance" of the place of the Temple. It is interesting to note that there is not one mention in the Torah (the 5 Books of Moses) as to the exact place where the Temple will stand. It is always referred to as "that place which the Lord thy God will choose". Maimonides discusses this in both his Guide to the Perplexed and his Mishnah Torah (Laws of Kings). But the fact remains that the placement of the Temple did not become clear until the age of the prophets.

It is held btw in Jewish Tradition, that the Temple was built on the rock that Jacob slept on when he asked God for his help. It is further accepted in tradition, from the Midrash and Zohar, that this rock was the place where God "began the creation of the Earth". (do not take that literally though)

So the place of the Temple is very holy to most Jews. Thus the vessels would be buried underneath. They were of course never found.

Some historians, such as Zeitlin and many Christian historians, due to the Arch of Titus, have theorized that many Temple vessels and artifacts were taken by the Romans back to Rome, and are now somewhere in the Vatican archives and storehouses hidden away. Obviously there is no way to prove such a supposition.

The Jews would really care where these artifacts were. The Temple at that period was the CENTRAL FOCAL point of all Jewish political and religious life. The Talmud however tells us that there were 5 differences between the first and second Temple. (If you want the exact quotation I can give it to you). The differences between Temples also refer to the fact that certain things like the Urim Ve'Tumim (worn by the High Priest) and the Parochet (Cover for the Holy of Holies) no longer could be found by 515 BCE. Thus it is fairly clear they were either destroyed or hidden away.

As to the why? I think that is clear. The Jews of today and then would certainly feel the need to safegaurd their most holy of objects.

2. John The Baptist...
Asking for his head is pure historical fiction. No Pharisee, Zaducee, or Zealot would have cared less about John the Baptist. Indeed most historians place him as being a member of the Essenes (Dead Sea Scrolls) who functioned in Qumran on the Dead Sea during that period. John the Baptist was one of a thousand running around, immersing himself in a Mikveh, and possibly though not sure, proclaiming the end of days. This was not by any means a unique phenomena then. Many people did it. No one of the time would have been proclaiming or asking for his head unless it was a political move, where the Essenes were influencing the Romans which never happened.

Remember, that the historian of the times, Josephus, has one passage on Jesus, and this passage is so highly disputed among scholars that most have accepted that it is not an original passage from the work "The War of the Jews". Without it there is no "historical record" from that time in another source besides the NT.

3. Holy Grail in 70 CE?
That is a new one on me, and I fail even to understand the question actually.

BTW, the temple vessels would have held some sacred attachment for the first generation Christians...but once Paul's doctrine was accepted, that would have been impossible.

I am stopping here and have shortened some answers cause this is too long and boring as it is!

[TeddyG]

Surely John the Baptist was considered to be a Jewish prophet? Just a thought as to why the Temple authorities would want his head preserved. After all, he was annoying Herod Antipas because he'd broken the Jewish laws about legal marriage.

John was most probably of the Essenes. He lived near the Dead Sea. The Essenes were by nature secretive and wanted nothing to do with Rome or the Temple in Jerusalem as it was totally politicized. He certainly was not considered in any way a prophet by the Jews, nor would I think, studying that period, would Herod have cared less about him.

Temple Authorities wanting John's head - I think that is really really stretching John's importance to anyone at the time. There were thousands of people preaching the end of days and going off to the desert. The Temple authorities were, if at all, interested in Jerusalem and Judea. The preists the Temple and the politics.

That is why those that did ran to Massada, until the Roman's destroyed it. Hoping "out of sight out of mind"

[pdr]

what happened to the Ark of the Covenant? Is it mentioned in the Torah as being hidden away? I know it was captured and taken as loot but then what?

As far as the Templars go I vaguely remember something about a Mandilion. Can anyone help me here? I only know the mandilion as a sort of jacket worn by men in the 16thC but does it have another significance for the Templars? My reference sources are packed away and a quick internet search only brings up the jacket.

A Catholic friend believes that as the Turin Shroud was found in France it is probably the same Shroud the Templars revered but I understood the Templars only had the linen cloth that wrapped Jesus' head.

All a bit of a muddle really isn't it? People so want to believe in treasure and conspiracies and Jesus' shroud that logic and the simple facts get ignored or badly manipulated.

[Pat~]

Remember, that the historian of the times, Josephus, has one passage on Jesus, and this passage is so highly disputed among scholars that most have accepted that it is not an original passage from the work "The War of the Jews". Without it there is no "historical record" from that time in another source besides the NT.

There are a few historical documents that also mention Jesus (I think this was in another thread)--though not in the detail that Josephus did. Although he's disputed he's rarely discredited, and the fact that he, as a Jew, mentions this "King of the Jews" at all seems to me to be all the more reason to consider it authentic. (A reverse polemic.)

[Sheryl Nantus]

my biggest problem with *any* Holy Grail discovery is the fact that no one knows how it could BE the actual cup.

when the Last Supper took place and supposedly the cup was used to drink from, no one knew the events that would follow - other than Jesus, of course. No one knew to walk away with the cup and then keep it at hand to catch the blood at the Cross. It's more likely that the actual cup was tossed in a bin to be washed and returned to the cupboard. And it sure as heck wasn't sparkly with tons of jewels on it!

but that's just my take.

[TeddyG]

There are a few historical documents that also mention Jesus (I think this was in another thread)--though not in the detail that Josephus did. Although he's disputed he's rarely discredited, and the fact that he, as a Jew, mentions this "King of the Jews" at all seems to me to be all the more reason to consider it authentic. (A reverse polemic.)

The Jesus passage in Josephus is what is disputed as being authentic.
I send you now to Wikipedia for reference - but follow any links there and Google it. This is a well known problem within Jospehus.

Wikipedia On Josephus's Jesus Passage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum)

And calling someone King of the Jews would in no way make anything authentic. Indeed since Josephus himself was a Jew and became a "traitor" to Rome - on either side I would highly doubt the possiblity that he called Jesus "King" - makes absolutely no sense. But the scholars have weighed in so be my guest....

[TeddyG]

what happened to the Ark of the Covenant? Is it mentioned in the Torah as being hidden away? I know it was captured and taken as loot but then what?

The Torah could not mention a hidden ark - because of timing. The Prophets could have but don't - if it happened until the beginning of 2nd Temple Era around 515 BCE.

So where is it? Well to be honest, kind of why we have Indiana Jones! :D

Seriously though, there is no one answer to that, and as they say 'it will remain a mystery until Elijah the Prophet returns and tells us"

:D

[pdr]

My apologies for being so ignorant about Jewish sacred books. The Torah is like the Bible's New Testament and the Prophets more like the Old?

I remember, a long time ago when I was at school, reading that some American university tried to replicate the Ark from the Biblical measurements and gave themselves severe electrical shocks. I wish I could find reference to that again. It was a serious newspaper I read it in too! They concluded that the Ark had built in security measures!!! It's always fascinated me ever since.

[TeddyG]

My apologies for being so ignorant about Jewish sacred books. The Torah is like the Bible's New Testament and the Prophets more like the Old?

I remember, a long time ago when I was at school, reading that some American university tried to replicate the Ark from the Biblical measurements and gave themselves severe electrical shocks. I wish I could find reference to that again. It was a serious newspaper I read it in too! They concluded that the Ark had built in security measures!!! It's always fascinated me ever since.

The OT is divided up as follows:
5 Books Of Moses
Prophets
Writings

The Torah ONLY refers to the 5 Books of Moses. Traditional Jews believe these five books were given to Moses at Mount Sinai by God to give to the Jewish people.
The whole OT in Hebrew is called Tenach (an anagram for Torah+Prophets+Writings in Hebrew obviously)

The only built in security measure on the Ark was the fact that it was considered to house the 10 Commandments given at Sinai. After that...it is all just hogwash :D

[robeiae]

If you want to know about the conspiracy theories surrounding the Templars, start with Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The book is full of wild speculations, but isn't a bad read and actually makes a few valid points, imo anyway. From there, you can move on to Graham Hancock's Sign and the Seal, where you will truly enter the realm of the fantastic. Still, it's fun. And this book argues that the Ark is not lost at all, but is in a Church in Ethiopia, where the Templars had found it. Um, yeah.

Now, there are some excellent histories of the Templars about, if you want to know more. I'd start with The Trial of the Templars. Also, their participation in the Crusades is, of course, well documented. I prefer Stephen Runciman's three volume history of the period.

As to what the Templars found at the temple site, I think it's pretty clear that they found something. Of course, they could have found an old piece of wood and thought it was from the cross, or maybe a rusty spear-head...

Yet, there is some sound analysis out there (can't put my finger on the articles at the moment, sorry) that the Templars did have some sort of "ace-in-the-hole," as it were, which allowed them to demand massive benefits from the Church hierarchy. What this was, we may never know. I doubt that it is the Holy Grail of legend, though, since I doubt there is such a thing that was actually kept (the cup Jesus used at the Last Supper). And it's kind of ludicrous to think such an object would have been kept at the Temple. Ditto for JtB's head.

Bloodlines? I don't know, but to accept the bloodlines given in the New Testament is to accept that Jesus was, in fact, related to David on both sides of his family. From this, some have speculated (and that's all it is) that Jesus could have been special because he was the result of joining these two bloodlines, insofar as it gave him some kind of claim to kingship over the Jews. But there is no real evidence for this (that's what makes it a good conspiracy, after all).

As to the historical reality of Jesus, an issue that seems to crop up on these boards every few months or so, let me just offer my own two cents on the matter, fwiw.

Setting aside the religious aspects of Jesus' existence and considering whether or not a person by that name lived in the given time frame in Judea and become the leader of some kind of movement/cult of indeterminate size which went on to flourish in the Roman world and then the rest of the Europe, I think:

1) Paul is a reality, as is James and the early Christian Church.
2) The Gospels and Paul's letters may be the only written documentation of Jesus' existence, but that's far from unusual, when it comes to historical figures.
3) To postulate that Jesus did not exist in any sense is to postulate that the Romans were complete baffoons--I cannot stress this enough--and I don't think they can be so characterized. Certainly, if the Romans knew Christianity was based on a non-person and on events that never happened, they would have said so, and loudly. It's not like they didn't understand how to use slogans and propaganda.
4) Jesus operated in the rural areas, among groups like the Zealots. He was bad news (along with similar rabble-rousers of the time) for those in power, Roman and Jew alike. It is completely predictable that those who followed him would avoid things like written words that could implicate them. You just don't do that in such times/places. It's an orally spread message, also because the literary rates in rural areas were much lower than in urban ones.

None of this suggests that Jesus was therefore the Son of God or that He died for our sins on the Cross, all it suggests is that there was, indeed, a real person named Jesus. That is all.

BTW, my favorite Templar story is the "cutting of the elm" at Gisors. :)

[TeddyG]

There is so much in the above Rob that is true, and some that may be (emphasis on may and not positive) not historically correct, or things that are not accepted by modern Biblical scholars both of the OT and NT.

Unfortunately, my kids are stuffing their faces, I am preparing for my son's Bar Mitzvah in 3 months, and I need awhile to go at this step by step. I hope to do it over the weekend. You make some really interesting points though as usual. I can deal with other stuff here, but with Rob one needs full concentration :D

[Higgins]

Yesterday evening, the National Geographic Channel ran a show about the Knights Templar, their origins, history, and some of the mysteries surrounding them. For the most part, I found the piece entertaining and educational, if a bit sensational.

But one part made my skeptic's ears perk up: the discussion of the "treasure" the Templars are said to have found in the Temple in Jerusalem, or been led to by clues they found therein. Apparently, when Rome reconquered Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jews managed to secret away most of the temple's treasures, recording their hiding places on copper tablets. The speculation offered by the show's narrator was that the Templars found one of the tablets and used it to find the treasure, and more importantly found something among the Temple treasures that contributed to the immense power they enjoyed in support of, and perhaps over, the Church.

It was the items they are supposed to have found that really made me take notice: the head of John the Baptist, the Holy Grail, and/or documents detailing the descendants of Jesus (a la The Da Vinci Code).

To me, the inclusion of these three objects in a list of treasures from the Temple in Jerusalem makes no sense. They would have been of inestimable value to first-century Christians--but why would Jews of the same period feel the need to safeguard them, presumably at risk to themselves and their temple? Why would a rabbi in 70 A.D. care at all about the head of John the Baptist? Why would he recognize the Holy Grail as an important object, or consider the bloodline of Jesus more important than other records of heredity?

Did anyone else see the Templars program? I'd love to know what you all thought of it, and whether I missed something. Or if you didn't see it, what you think about this issue. The nerd in me needs to try to figure this out--it's not even part of my current WIP, although I am toying with including the Templars in a future work.

Thanks for your help!
HN

There are perfectly good scholarly books on the Templars, but of late writing about the Templars has tended to be even more conspiracy and "secret" oriented than ever. It sounds like an interesting area, but you ought to start with the well-grounded things so that you will know what you can reasonably add or substract from the reality of the Templars.

Malcom Barber's history is a good place to start:


http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521558727

[Histry Nerd]

Thanks for the feedback, all. You've given me some great background.

The bottom line seems to be that whatever the Templars found in the Temple, it probably had nothing directly to do with Jesus. So the program I saw was just wrong, or at least edited to make it seem two unrelated aspects of the Templars' history were linked.

Sounds like my BS detector is properly calibrated after all. Good to know. Doggone thing seems to ping on everything these days....

HN