Founding Origins of the "Knights Templar" Order Historical Templar Foundations Which Supported its Later Survival & Restoration

Foundations in the Historical Temple of Solomon

 

King Baldwin II granting Temple of Solomon to Hugues de Payens & Godefroi de St Omer for the Knights Templar

King Baldwin II granting Temple of Solomon to Hugues de Payens & Godefroi de St Omer for the Knights Templar

T (100) Knights Templar Illuminated Letters www.knightstemplarorder.orgThe legendary “Knights Templar” was first established in 1118 AD by nine French knights, who founded the chivalric and religious Order of the Temple of Solomon. This Templar Order, famously comprised of its unique brand of spiritual “warrior monks”, was named after the Temple of Solomon, from which the Order recovered and restored its own Templar Priesthood, being the most ancient Priesthood as continued by the Biblical King Solomon.

The prominent British Barrister and authoritative historian, Charles G. Addison, documented that the Templar Order was founded when “nine noble knights formed a holy brotherhood in arms, and entered into a solemn pact”, inspired by “the religious and military fervour of the day, and animated by the sacredness of the cause to which they had devoted their swords”.

It is established in the historical record that “Baldwin II, King of Jerusalem, gave the Knights Templars quarters in his palace, built on the site of Solomon’s Temple.” [1] Addison explained that the King of Jerusalem “granted them a place of habitation within the sacred inclosure of the Temple on Mount Moriah”, which at the time was promoted and described “by the monks and priests of Jerusalem… as the Temple of Solomon, whence the [knights] came thenceforth to be known by the name of ‘the Knighthood of the Temple of Solomon’.” [2]

The initial motivation of the first Templars to obtain access to the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem traces further back to the Saxon Cistercian Abbot of Citeaux, Stephen Harding, known to be a friend and mentor of Bernard de Clairvaux. As explained by French historians, the Abbot pursued a “sudden interest” in translating Old Testament texts, because “they revealed that a hidden treasure lay buried beneath the Temple Mount. This is why the lay patron of the Cistercians, Count Hugh of Champagne, went to Jerusalem and instigated his vassal” Hughes de Payens “to establish” the Order of the Temple of Solomon on the Temple Mount. [3]

The site of “The Temple” of Solomon (also the site of its later replica reconstruction by King Herod one level above it) is generally accepted to have stood on the full territory of the Temple Mount, which runs underneath and around both the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, which are adjacent to each other.

The fact that King Baldwin II’s palace on Temple Mount (also called Mount Moriah) was built upon the same site as the ancient Temple of Solomon, and that the site did indeed contain the actual Biblical “Temple of Solomon”, was confirmed by the 5th century Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea, and also by the 19th century British lawyer and historian Charles Addison, both stating that “Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem on Mount Moriah”. [4]

Flavius Josephus, contemporary historian documenting Temple of Solomon

Flavius Josephus, contemporary historian documenting Temple of Solomon

The famous 1st century historian Flavius Josephus (ca. 31-100 AD), as the Governor of Galilee, confirmed that King Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem was built on top of the same site as the original King Solomon’s Temple.  Josephus documented it as having many detailed characteristics that very closely follow the Biblical description of King Solomon’s Temple, and specifically featuring representations of the heavenly sphere of the constellations related to the ancient Egyptian Priesthood. [5]

Flavius Josephus, by his own site research of Herod’s replica Temple, established that the Temple of Solomon contained “figures of living creatures within it”, a reference to the Egyptian pantheon of “deities” (who were actually Angels and Saints), Egyptian hieroglyphs, and other Egyptian inscriptions featuring animal figures. [6] [7]

This historical witness description of Herod’s replica Temple mirrors the Biblical account of Ezekiel, in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 8:10-11) [8]. University Bible scholarship of 20th century historians confirmed that when Ezekiel looked into the Holy of Holies within Solomon’s Temple, he saw “paintings… and other mythological scenes, motifs which seemed to point to syncretistic practices of Egyptian provenance.” [9]

The historical record thus documents that the archaeological excavation of the Temple of Jerusalem, by the founding Templar Knights, included the first direct access to remnants of Herod’s Temple, and also underneath it remnants and underground levels of Solomon’s Temple. Contemporary accounts indicate that this archaeological exploration revealed extensive evidence that the Temple of Solomon, the ancient Templar Priesthood of the Biblical Solomon, and the origins of Christianity itself, were all essentially and fundamentally Pharaonic Egyptian.

This establishes that archaeology and Egyptology are literally the foundation and cornerstone of both Christianity and Templarism.

According to the Sufi Master and historian, Sayed Idries el-Hashimi (1924-1996 AD), known as “Idries Shah”, the Egyptian branch of Al-Banna Gnostic Sufis helped the first Templars with their archaeological findings from the Temple of Solomon. When the Sufis heard news of the Knights Templar excavating under Temple Mount, they immediately travelled from Egypt to Jerusalem to join the Knights. They knew that the Temple of Solomon was Pharaonic Egyptian, and that its esoteric secrets from the ancient Magi Priesthood would require initiated mastery to understand. They also knew its importance to Christianity, saying “You may have the Cross, but we have the meaning of the Cross.” The Egyptian Sufis extensively trained the first Knights Templar during their formative nine years of excavating the Temple of Solomon. [10]

 

The Power of Ancient Secrets: The Importance of Archaeology

 

Hughes de Payens, 1st Grand Master of the Templar Order under King Fulk

Hughes de Payens, 1st Grand Master of the Templar Order under King Fulk

T (100) Knights Templar Illuminated Letters www.knightstemplarorder.orgThe original founding Knights and first two Grand Masters formed the Templar Order primarily as a result of their initial archaeological findings inside the historical Temple of Solomon, from which they derived the name “Templar” (“of the Temple”). In effect, the Knights Templar were directly inspired, created, and rose to power on the basis of their archaeological excavation and discoveries within the Temple of Solomon.

Many modern researchers of medieval history have concluded that the first Templars essentially stayed underground deep within the Temple of Solomon, mostly not resurfacing except to send for supplies, for several years. “The Templars’ apparent lack of activity in their formative years, seems to have been due to some form of covert project beneath the Temple of Solomon or nearby, an operation that could not be revealed to any but a few high-ranking Nobles.” [11] [12]

Templar historians have come to the same conclusion, that the Knights Templar conducted archaeological excavation of the Temple of Solomon for a full nine years [13].

The resulting time frame established is highly significant. The Vatican gave patronage to the Templars with a grant of essentially “unlimited power” in 1129 AD, on the 11th year of the Order being established under King Baldwin II. Since the Templars resurfaced from excavations nine years after they were formed, this means that the Vatican gave them such power only two years later, a mere one year after they finished sufficient processing of their archaeological discoveries.

The context provided by these facts is deeply revealing of the importance of the archaeological discoveries made. Of that one year interval, it would take approximately three months for the Knights to travel from Jerusalem to the Vatican in Rome, at least three months for the Vatican to make official decisions, and at least six months to develop, prepare and implement the Roman Catholic version of the Knights Templar, which is precisely what happened.

This means that the Templars basically “ran” to the Vatican, directly and immediately, to present their discoveries as fast as possible. It also means that the Vatican responded overwhelmingly to that presentation, moving as quickly as any such international institution possibly could, to “immediately” grant the Templars unprecedented powers.

These historical facts evidence that whatever the Templar Knights found underground within the Temple of Solomon, it was so fascinating, important, inspiring, and voluminous in quantity of texts and artifacts, that it drove them to “obsession” (or at least devout dedication), relentlessly processing the discoveries on-site, despite difficult underground conditions, for nine whole years.

The same facts also evidence that whatever the Knights Templar found, it was so important, and had such potential to so profoundly affect the fundamental bases and authorities of the Vatican to its very core, that it caused the Vatican to “instantly” grant overwhelming power and autonomy to the Templars within less than one year, even though the Church had no previous relationship with the newly formed Order.

The belief demonstrated by the actions of the first Knights Templar, that archaeology itself is a sacred and holy mission of primary importance to the underlying founding roots of Christianity, is supported by a key fact in Vatican history:

Pope Gregory XVI, founded the Vatican Egyptian Musuem

Pope Gregory XVI, founded the Vatican Egyptian Musuem

Pope Gregory XVI founded the “Gregorian Egyptian Museum” in the Vatican in 1839 AD, featuring a large collection of ancient priestly texts, including original papyrus scrolls and reproductions of the Book of the Dead, as well as mummies and sarcophagi bearing significant religious and symbolic inscriptions. The collection focuses on ancient artifacts which trace the roots of early Coptic Christianity back to Pharaonic times.

That emphasis of the museum’s exhibits supports the reports of historians, that the Pope had founded the Vatican Egyptology museum with the intent that Catholics studying ancient Egyptian history would thereby increase their understanding of the Bible. This little known fact was confirmed by a statement of Vatican Museums Management, that Egyptology has a “fundamental role” in Biblical studies [14].  That historical fact confirms the reality that archaeology is an integral and essential part of both Christianity in general, and Templarism in particular.

 

Founding Sovereign Patronage of the Kings of Jerusalem

 

King Baldwin II, painting 'Baudouin du Bourg, Roi de Jérusalem' (1844 AD), Palais de Versailles. Paris

King Baldwin II, painting ‘Baudouin du Bourg, Roi de Jérusalem’ (1844 AD), Palais de Versailles. Paris

U (100) Knights Templar Illuminated Letters www.knightstemplarorder.orgUpon the initial formation of the Order of the Temple of Solomon in 1118 AD, King Baldwin II granted the founding Knights Templar headquarters in his palace, evidencing a relationship of Royal Patronage [15] [16]. Vatican records state that “Hughes de Payens… and eight companions bound themselves by a perpetual vow, taken in the presence of the Patriarch of Jerusalem”, thereby confirming the Order was formed directly under Royal Patronage of the Kingdom of Jerusalem [17].

The Crusader chronicler Archbishop William of Tyre documented that in 1119 AD, King Baldwin II and Patriarch Warmund officially gave both Royal Patronage and Ecclesiastical Patronage to the Templars as a chivalric Order: “The Lord King and his noblemen and also the Lord Patriarch [of Jerusalem] and the prelates of the Church gave them benefices from their domains… some in perpetuity.” [18]

The fact of Royal Patronage under King Baldwin II was further confirmed by other 12th century chroniclers: “The King came to them and gave them land and castles and towns… the King succeeded in persuading the Prior of the Sepulchre to release them from obedience… and they left”. [19]

Independence from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre did not exempt the Knights Templar from the traditional protocols requiring sovereign patronage for legitimacy of a chivalric Order. These facts evidence that the Order was simply transferred to the Royal patronage of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, especially as it was the King himself who secured their independence from the Church.

William of Tyre also documented that the official Royal Patronage of King Baldwin II was again reconfirmed and formalized at the Council of Nablus in 1120 AD, with ecclesiastical sovereignty by Patriarch Warmund of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

University historians generally recognize that the founding authority of the Grand Mastery of the Templar Order was the Royal Patronage of the Kings of Jerusalem: “From this time all masters were leading political and military figures in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. … Although the Templars were not directly responsible to any secular monarch… at least seven of the twenty-two masters were appointed by direct secular intervention.” [25]

Count Fulk marrying Princess Melisende

Count Fulk marrying Princess Melisende

Count Fulk d’Anjou (ca. 1090-1143 AD) was also known as “Count Fulk the Younger of Anjou” (alternatively spelled “Foulque” or “Foulques” in some medieval documents). An experienced noble warrior from the First Crusade, he was one of the first two founding nobility patrons of the first nine Templars, and one of the founding Knights of the Templar Order.

When the Templar Order was created in 1118 AD, Fulk d’Anjou was the direct sponsor of Robert de Crayon, his own Senior Vassal and also his blood relative of the Angevin dynasty, who he later established as the 2nd Grand Master of the Templar Order [26]. Fulk officially joined the Order in 1120 AD, and began active participation as a Knight, essentially serving as the silent 10th founding knight [27].

Count Fulk married the daughter of King Baldwin II of Jerusalem, Melisende in 1129 AD, and they became joint rulers as King and Queen of Jerusalem in 1131 AD. Fulk remained King of Jerusalem until his death in 1143 AD, and was buried inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Thus, from 1131-1143 AD he also served as the primary and original source of sovereign authority for the Order of the Temple of Solomon (“Knights Templar”), representing the Royal Patronage supporting its first two Grand Masters.

As part of the “inner circle” of the Knights Templar from the inception of the Order, he was necessarily a member of its original Grand Mastery (from 1120-1143 AD), serving under Kings Baldwin I and Baldwin II of Jerusalem. Later as King of Jerusalem, by the rules and protocols of chivalry which were strictly followed in the 12th century, Fulk would have held the title of Grand Regent, together with the Grand Masters Hughes de Payens (from 1131-1136 AD) and Robert de Crayon (from 1136-1143 AD).

Fulk was thus a prominent figure in the Order of the Temple of Solomon, supporting its first and second Grand Masters for 25 years, serving as a co-founding Knight Templar on its Grand Mastery for 23 years, and carrying the Royal Patronage of the Order for the last 12 years of that period.

The centrality of King Fulk of Jerusalem to the Knights Templar, as the prior founding patronage and early sovereign authority for the Order, is highlighted by his historical connection to the motivations for King Philip IV of France in persecuting the Templars.

Sometime after Fulk was born, his mother Bertrade had deserted her husband and married King Philip I of France in 1092 AD. This historical background may have influenced the later King Philip IV of France to consider the Knights Templar as rivals. A traditional “jealousy” against the historical House of Anjou (of his ancestor’s wife), as a risk or potential threat of retribution, was likely handed down by oral history over generations. This would have escalated the fact of embarrassing debts of King Philip IV to the Templars to the level of a defensive vendetta against perceived enemies of his royal family. That could have led to Philip IV manipulating and blackmailing the Vatican to persecute the Templars through the inquisition in 1307.

 

Permanent Independent Sovereignty from Papal Protection

 

B (100) Knights Templar Illuminated Letters www.knightstemplarorder.orgBy 1119 AD, as documented by 12th century Templar chroniclers, King Baldwin II ensured that the Templar Order would be independent from the Church: “The King… succeeded in persuading the Prior of the Sepulchre to release them from obedience… and they left” [28]. This was unusual, because Royal Patronage was never exclusive of Ecclesiastical Patronage, and by chivalric rules an Order could hold multiple patronages. Indeed, both the Royal and Ecclesiastical were traditionally preferred to be held in combination.

The fact that King Baldwin II established the Templar Order’s independence from the Church evidences that he was aware that the Order already possessed inherent ecclesiastical authority in its own right. Under customary law and Canon law, such authority would necessarily flow from its own unique Templar Priesthood, which the Order recovered from the Temple of Solomon.

The King’s action thus demonstrated official recognition of the fact that the Order held its own inherent ecclesiastical sovereignty. This also confirms that the Kingdom of Jerusalem had planned and intended for the Templar Order to eventually have recognized and exercise its own sovereignty with full independence.

This implicit Royal recognition of the inherent ecclesiastical sovereignty of the Templar Priesthood in its own right apparently set a legal precedent. Only 20 years later, the Vatican officially recognized and institutionalized the full and independent ecclesiastical sovereignty of the Templar Order at the highest level, in a historic Papal Bull:

Pope Innocent II (Closeup) Mosaic in Santa Maria Trastevere Rome (ca. 1140-43 AD)

Pope Innocent II (Closeup) Mosaic in Santa Maria Trastevere Rome (ca. 1140-43 AD)

In 1139 AD, Pope Innocent II issued the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum (“Every Good Gift”), officially granting full Ecclesiastical Protection to the Order of the Temple of Solomon.  Addressed to the “Master of the Religious Order of the Knighthood of the Temple… and his successors and brothers, both present and future in perpetuity”, it declared: “We establish that the house or Temple… will be under the protection and tutelage of the Holy See for all time to come.” [29]

The word “Protection”, and the full phrase “Tutela Protection”, is a technical term of customary international law and Canon law, meaning an official and irrevocable grant of permanent sovereignty with independence. University scholars confirm that this was “papal letters of protection” in the legal sense, which “laid the jurisdictional foundation of the Order’s independence”, granting full sovereignty as “the most sweeping of their privileges”. [30]

Confirming sovereignty with statehood as an independent Principality, this Papal Bull granted the Templar Order authority “not only in your Principal [princely] house but also in your dependencies and places subject to them”, as “for ever the head and ruler of all those places belonging to it.” Confirming sovereign governmental immunity, it declared that the laws and missions of the Order “may not be infringed nor diminished by any ecclesiastical or secular person.” [31]

Proving conclusively that the grant of sovereignty in Omne Datum Optimum is permanent and absolutely irrevocable, the end part of the Papal Bull unequivocally declares: “If anyone, with the knowledge of this our decree, rashly attempts to act against it… he shall lose the dignity of his power and honor”, and shall be “accused of the perpetrated injustice before the divine court… subject to severe vengeance at final judgment.” [32]

This massively historic landmark Papal Bull, of profound importance to the Templar Order, has been (incredibly) overlooked, as if suppressed. Most modern “history books” typically dismiss it as merely exempting the Templars from paying tithes to the Church or taxes to Kings, if they mention it at all. Such superficial indirect references fail to disclose the actual reason why the Order was “exempt” – precisely because it was granted full independent sovereignty of statehood in its own right, as a non-territorial form of Principality.

In 1144 AD, Pope Celestine II issued the Papal Bull Milites Templi (“Knights of the Temple”), and in 1145 AD Pope Eugenius III issued the supporting Papal Bull Militia Dei (“Knighthood of God”), which both further solidified this jurisdictional foundation for the Order’s sovereign independence [33] [34].

Therefore, as of 1139 AD, only 21 years after the Templar Order was founded, and 10 years after receiving Vatican patronage, the Knights Templar were elevated to full and permanent independent sovereignty of statehood as a non-territorial Principality.

By possessing its own inherent statehood of sovereignty, under the rules and protocols of Chivalry in customary law and Canon law, the Order no longer needed any external patronage for legitimacy as a Chivalric Order. Indeed, as an independent Principality of ecclesiastical sovereignty, the Templar Priesthood held sufficient legal authority to give its own patronage to the chivalric aspect of the Order.

Vatican records witnessed that the Templar Order did in fact exercise its statehood as a Principality, although in the context of the Pope’s formidable and influential political weight.  Official Vatican scholarship documented that it exercised its independent sovereignty quietly and privately, only in its relations with other historical institutions:

“Quite independent, except from the distant authority of the Pope, and possessing power equal to that of the leading temporal sovereigns, the Order soon assumed the right to direct the weak and irresolute government of the Kingdom of Jerusalem”. [35]

“Moreover, the [sovereign] orders of religious knighthood, [including] the Templars founded by Hugh of Payens in 1128… formed regular powers, equally independent of Church and State. … the pope [and] the king could not interfere in their temporal affairs, and each of the three orders had its own army and exercised the right of concluding treaties… [Even] royal authority [of kings] was restricted to rather narrow limits by these various powers” of the sovereign Orders of Chivalry. [36]

Specifically confirming the inherent ecclesiastical sovereignty of the Templar Order, the Vatican also witnessed that it even had independent “chaplains, who alone were vested with sacerdotal orders, to minister to the spiritual needs of the order.” [37]

As a result of this history of its development, the Order thus had two primary founding sources of its authority for future succession of its original Grand Mastery: (1) the dynastic line of Templar founder and Royal patron King Fulk of Jerusalem, and (2) initiatory and doctrinal succession of the Ancient Priesthood recovered from the Temple of Solomon, as the basis for its Papal recognition and Tutela Protection of sovereignty.

 

Suggested Topics Related to this Information

 

Click to learn about the Survival of the Order continuing into the modern era.

Click to learn about the Restoration of the Order to legitimacy in the modern era.

Click to learn about the Legitimacy & Restoration Rules of historical institutions.

Academic Source References for this Topic

 

[1] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Thomson Gale (1985), 1985 Edition, Macmillan Library Reference (1990), “Knights Templars”.

[2] Charles G. Addison, The History of the Knights Templar (1842), pp.4-5, citing a Vatican document by the 13th century Pope Urban IV (Jacques Pantaleon 1195-1264), the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, as “Pantaleon, Lib. iii. p. 82.”

[3] Michael Lamy, Les Templiers: Ces Grand Seigneurs aux Blancs Manteaux, Auberon (1994), Bordeaux (1997), p.28.

[4] Charles G. Addison, The History of the Knights Templar (1842), p.6, citing the document De Aedificiis by the 5th century Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea as “Procopius de Oedificiis Justiniani, Lib. 5.”

[5] Titus Flavius Josephus, Jewish War, Rome (78 AD); Translation by William Whiston (1736), Loeb Classical Library (1926), Volume II, Book 5, pp.212, 217.

[6] Titus Flavius Josephus, Jewish War, Rome (78 AD); Translation by William Whiston (1736), Loeb Classical Library (1926), Volume II; See pp.212, 217; The Temple contained “Babylonian” decorations of “mystical interpretation… a kind of image of the universe… all that was mystical in the heavens… [and] signs, representing living creatures.” (Book 5, Chapter 5, Part 4)  Other symbols “signified the circle of the Zodiack” (Book 5, Chapter 5, Part 5).

[7] Titus Flavius Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus, Rome (ca. 96 AD); Translation by William Whiston (1736), Loeb Classical Library (1926), Volume I; See p.65; The Temple replica rebuilt by King Herod also “had the figures of living creatures in it” (Part 12).

[8] Old Testament, Authorized King James Version (AKJV), Cambridge University Press (1990), Ezekiel describing Egyptian Priesthood inscriptions and figures inside the Temple of Solomon, Ezekiel 8:10-11.

[9] Prof. Arthur Samuel Peake (Editor), A Commentary on the Bible, T.C. & E.C. Jack, Ltd., London (1920), Ezekiel 8:10-11;  Dr. Peake was Professor of Biblical Exegesis at University of Manchester, a Master of Arts and Doctor of Divinity.

[10] Idries Shaw, The Sufis (1964), republished by Anchor Press (1971).

[11] Keith Laidler, The Head of God: The Lost Treasure of the Templars, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1998), p.177.

[12] Piers Paul Read, The Templars: The Dramatic History of the Knights Templar, the Most Powerful Military Order of the Crusades, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1999), Phoenix Press, London (2001), Orion Publishing Group, London (2012), p.305.

[13] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.2.

[14] The Vatican, Gregorian Egyptian Museum, Vatican Museums Management (museivaticani.va), Statement (2003), Republished in “Sections” topic (2007): “Pope Gregory XVI had the Gregorian Egyptian Museum founded in 1839. … The Popes’ interest in Egypt was connected with the fundamental role attributed to this country by the Sacred Scripture in the History of Salvation. … The last two rooms house finds from ancient Mesopotamia and from Syria-Palestine.”

[15] Collier’s Encyclopedia, Thomson Gale (1985), 1985 Edition, Macmillan Library Reference (1990), “Knights Templars”.

[16] Charles G. Addison, The History of the Knights Templar (1842), pp.4-5, citing a Vatican document by the 13th century Pope Urban IV (Jacques Pantaleon 1195-1264), the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, as “Pantaleon, Lib. iii. p. 82.”

[17] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, “Templars, Knights”, Part 1, “Their Humble Beginning”, p.493.

[18] William of Tyre, Historia Rerum in Partibus Transmarinis Gestarum (ca. 1172 AD), XII, 7, Patrologia Latina, 201, 526-27, Translated by James Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary History, Marquette University Press, Milwaukee (1962), pp.70-73.

[19] Ernoul & Bernard, Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Tresorier (ca. 1188), Ed. L. de Mas Latrie, Paris (1871), Chapter 2, pp.7-8.

[20] Hans E. Mayer, The Concordat of Nablus, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Cambridge University Press, No. 33 (October 1982), pp.531-533, 541-542.

[21] Dominic Selwood, Quidem Autem Dubitaverunt:  The Saint, the Sinner, the Temple; Published in:  M. Balard (Editor), Autour de la Première Croisade, Publications de la Sorbonne, Paris (1996), pp.221-230.

[22] Dominic Selwood, Knights Templar III: Birth of the Order (2013), historian for Daily Telegraph of London, article.

[23] Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars, Cambridge University Press (1978), p.8.

[24] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.5.

[25] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.5.

[26] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.5-6.

[27] M. Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1978), Volume 6, pp.308-311.

[28] Ernoul & Bernard, Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Tresorier (ca. 1188), Ed. L. de Mas Latrie, Paris (1871), Chapter 2, pp.7-8.

[29] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum (29 March 1139), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.59-65.

[30] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.8.

[31] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum (29 March 1139), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.59-65.

[32] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum (29 March 1139), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.64.

[33] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.8.

[34] Pope Eugenius III, Militia Dei, “Knighthood of God” (7 April 1145), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.8, 65-66.

[35] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, “Templars, Knights”, Part 2, “Their Marvellous Growth”, pp.493-494.

[36] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 8, “Jerusalem”, p.363.

[37] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, “Templars, Knights”, Part 1, “Their Humble Beginning”, p.493.