Arcadia Discussion Zone

Roscoe,

I am a bit confused about what you are disputing. Are you disputing the idea that the Treasure of Solomon was ever reported to be in the South of France in ancient times, or just the idea (which you think originated with De Sede, as well as Jaffus?) that this treasure was associated with RLC?

Anyway i have answered as best i could and hopefully i havent misunderstood:

bergeredearcadie wrote:
"The city of Carcassonne contained a part of the treasure of Jerusalem?", but this idea is even based on an older local tradition.

Gregory of Tours reports this in his History of the Franks …. And so do a couple more historians around this time .. i of course use the word 'historian' here loosely....

This is Gerard de Sede again. I have the book you refer to here and it doesn't say that.

Errr, really? Try looking here: Penguin Classics (1974): Gregory of Tours: The History of the Franks, Book II.37 (page 154)

“Amalaric, the son of Alaric, escaped from the conflict and fled to Spain, where he later ruled his fathers kingdom wisely. Clovis sent his own son Theuderic through Albi and the town of Rodez to Clermont-Ferrand. As he moved forward Theuderic subjected to his father’s rule all the towns which lay between the two frontiers of the Goths and the Burgundes. Alaric II had reigned for twelve years. Clovis wintered in the town of Bordeaux. He removed all of Alarics treasure from Toulouse and went to Angouleme’

However Procopius also reports that the Franks attacked Carcassonne, looking for the Treasure of Solomon. He wrote:

“But later on, when the power of the Germans was growing greater, they began to think slightingly of Theoderic and the fear he inspired, and took the field against Alaric and the Visigoths. And when Alaric learned this, he summoned Theoderic as quickly as possible. And he set out to his assistance with a great army. In the meantime, the Visigoths, upon learning that the Germans were in camp near the city of Carcasiana,[56] went to meet them, and making a camp remained quiet. But since much time was being spent by them in blocking the enemy in this way, they began to be vexed, and seeing that their land [129]was being plundered by the enemy, they became indignant. And at length they began to heap many insults upon Alaric, reviling him on account of his fear of the enemy and taunting him with the delay of his father-in-law. For they declared that they by themselves were a match for the enemy in battle and that even though unaided they would easily overcome the Germans in the war. For this reason Alaric was compelled to do battle with the enemy before the Goths had as yet arrived. And the Germans, gaining the upper hand in this engagement, killed the most of the Visigoths and their ruler Alaric. 507 A.D.Then they took possession of the greater part of Gaul and held it; and they laid siege to Carcasiana with great enthusiasm, because they had learned that the royal treasure was there, which Alaric the elder in earlier times had taken as booty when he captured Rome.[57] Among these were also the treasures of Solomon, the king of the Hebrews, a most noteworthy sight. For the most of them were adorned with emeralds; and they had been taken from Jerusalem by the Romans in ancient times.[58]

bergeredearcadie wrote:
Galla Placidia, who had been his captive since the sacking of Rome. Galla Placidia eventually became Ataulf's wife
Some of the treasure of Solomon was used by Ataulf at this wedding so we know the treasure was with him at this time. And as point of fact, Galla Placidia was supposed to have not been very impressed with being presented with jewells theat had been stolen from her kindred at Rome ....they also used plated and such like taken from the Temple of Solomon (apparently).

Gerard de Sede again I'm afraid.

Actually, No. This is based on the work of an historian, Olympiodorus of Thebes. His books are lost, but Photius, a 9th century historian had seen them and summarized the books of this Olympiodorus. They remain in surviving manuscripts which report that at the wedding of Galla Placidia some of the treasure of Solomon was used. The paragrapgh reporting this is as follows:

“On the advice and with the assistance of Candidian the marriage of Ataulf with Placidia was celebrated at the beginning of January in the city of Narbo (Narbonne), in the house of Ingenius, one of the most distinguished citizens. Placidia sat in the inner apartment dressed in Roman style and in royal robes, with Ataulf by her side, wearing a woollen tunic and Roman costume. Amongst other wedding presents Ataulf gave his bride fifty beautiful youths dressed in silk, each bearing in his hands two very large dishes, one filled with gold, the other with precious, or rather priceless, stones, the spoils of Rome when it was sacked by the Goths. Then wedding-songs were sung, Attalus leading the chorus, accompanied by Rusticius and Phoebadius. The ceremony ended with great demonstrations of joy and games, in which Romans and barbarians alike took part”
You can read about it here: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photi ... eca.htm#80

Of parallel interest is the fact that Athaulf, leaves the bulk of the treasure from the Sack of Rome under the command of his son. That is a whole interesting history in itself. Jordanes reports however, that some of the treasure did go with Athaulf later - to Barcelona.

Is this what you mean Sandy.


http://www.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Course ... dgeti.html

JORDANES

THE ORIGIN AND DEEDS OF THE GOTHS


translated by Charles C. Mierow

Looks like you're right. Congrats on the research. I was aware of the passage by Gregory of Tours on page 194, it doesn't mention the Treasure of Solomon just the treasure of Alaric.

But I'd forgotten about Procopius, this exact passage you quote was read out in Lincoln's The lost treasure of Jerusalem

Of course it was Alaric II that the Germans killed in 507.

it doesn't mention the Treasure of Solomon just the treasure of Alaric.

Maybe i shouldnt, but i tend to see this as the same thing. In the sources, these terms seem to be interchangeable 'treasure of Solomon' = 'treasure of Alaric'.

But I'd forgotten about Procopius, this exact passage you quote was read out in Lincoln's The lost treasure of Jerusalem

Paul Smith has emailed me to tell me what an idiot i am because Procopius also wrote

“Belisarius, upon reaching Byzantium with Gelimer [last king of the Vandals, captured by Belisarius in 534] and the Vandals, was counted worthy to receive such honours, as in former times were assigned to those generals of the Romans who had won the greatest and most noteworthy victories. And a period of about six hundred years had now passed since anyone had attained these honours, except, indeed, Titus and Trajan, and such other emperors as had led armies against some barbarian nation and had been victorious. For he displayed the spoils and slaves from the war in the midst of the city and led a procession which the Romans call a "triumph," not, however, in the ancient manner, but going on foot from his own house to the hippodrome and then again from the barriers [the starting point for the racers at the open end of the Hippodrome] until he reached the place where the imperial throne is. And there was booty,-first of all, whatever articles are wont to be set apart for the royal service,-thrones of gold and carriages in which it is customary for a king's consort to ride, and much Jewelry made of precious stones, and golden drinking cups, and all the other things which are useful for the royal table. And there was also silver weighing many thousands of talents and all the royal treasure amounting to an exceedingly great sum (for Gizeric [leader of the Vandals who had sacked Rome in 455] had despoiled the Palatium in Rome) and among these were the treasures of the Jews, which Titus, the son of Vespasian, together with certain others, had brought to Rome after the capture of Jerusalem [70 A.D.]. And one of the Jews, seeing these things, approached one of those known to the emperor and said: "These treasures I think it inexpedient to carry into the palace in Byzantium. Indeed, it is not possible for them to be elsewhere than in the place where Solomon, the king of the Jews, formerly placed them. For it is because of these that Gizeric captured the palace of the Romans, and that now the Roman army has captured that of the Vandals." When this had been brought to the ears of the Emperor, he became afraid and quickly sent everything to the sanctuaries of the Christians in Jerusalem.”
Medieval Sourcebook:
Procopius: The Reconquest of Africa, 534
On the Wars IV.9
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/p ... rs4-9.html

Smith also informs me that Procopius is a ridiculed historian. And an unreliable one.
So perhaps we shouldn’t take the word of Procopius?

But actually, Procopius is a noted historian ..…. “The Byzantine historian Procopius (born c. 500 AD) held a high civilian post on the staff of Justinian's great marshal, Belisarius. He participated in several campaigns, including the victorious one against the Ostrogoths in Italy (536-540 AD). In 562 he became Prefect of the City in Constantinople. In the year 537 AD Ostia and Portus figure prominently in The Gothic War (De Bello Gothico), part of Procopius' History of the Wars of Justinian, that was written in Greek.”
Procopius also had some sort of axe to grind later against Belisarius.

From the Medieval Sourcebook site: Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s] is the most important source for information about the reign of the emperor Justinian [born 482/3, ruled. 527-565] and his wife Theodora [d. 547/8]. From 527 to 531 Procopius was a counsel the great general of the time, Belisarius [505-565]. He was on Belisarius's first Persian campaign [527-531], and later took part in an expedition against the Vandals [533-534]. He was in Italy on the Gothic campaign until 540, after which he lived in Constantinople, since he describes the great plague of 542 in the capital. His life after that is largely unknown, although he was given the title illustris in 560 and in may have been prefect of Constantinople in 562-3.
He wrote a number of official histories, including On the Wars in eight books [Polemon or De bellis], published 552, with an addition in 554, and On the Buildings in six books [Peri Ktismaton or De aedificiis], published 561. He also left a "Secret History" [Anecdota, i.e. "unpublished things", not "anecdotes"], probably written c. 550 and published after his death, which was a massive attack on the character of Justinian and his wife Theodora. Parts are so vitriolic, not to say pornographic [esp. Chapter 9], that for some time translations from Greek were only available into Latin [Gibbon - in Ch. 40 of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire wrote about Theodora that "her arts must be veiled in the obscurity of a learned language ", and then went on to quote the passage in Greek with Latin comments!]
The Secret History claims to provide explanations and additions that the author could not insert into his work on the Wars for fear of retribution from Justinian and Theodora. Since both before and afterward, Procopius wrote approvingly of the emperor, it was suggested in the past that he was not the author of the work, but it is now generally accepted that Procopius wrote it. Analysis of text, which show no contradictions in point of fact between the Secret History and the other works, as well a linguistic and grammatical analysis makes this a conclusive opinion.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/procop-anec.html

But let us not get away from the fact that Procopius said the treasure of the Jews was sent back to sanctuaries in Jerusalem. And we cannot dismiss Procopius.

Why would he say Alaric has the treasure, then Belisarius had it?
If he is not lying, there must be a reason? Perhaps they had different parts of the treasure for example?

The contradictory accounts of the fate of this Jerusalem treasure are interesting.

There are also the reports of the Arab historian, Ben Qutaiba, which indicate that when the Arabs took Toledo in 711, they had found the golden table identified as that of the table of Solomon. So, some of Solomons treasure was in Toledo with the Visigoths.

The historians I cited (including the history of Athaulf), report that the Visigoths did have the Treasure of Solomon. Gregory of Tours also reports that the Franks (Merovingians) believed the Visigoths had this treasure at Carcassonne.

Perhaps the treasure became separated? It remains a mystery.

“After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Menorah was brought to Rome. The representation on the Arch of Titus poses a minor problem, because the pedestal (an octagon) is different from all other representations, which nearly always show the Menorah with three legs. Worse, the octagon shows eagles with garlands in their beaks and capricorns on its upper tier, and aquatic animals on its lower tier: these symbols are not known from Judaean art of the centuries BCE, and violate the second of the Ten Commandments ("You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth") Eagles and water snakes do not belong on a Jewish cultic object.
Several solutions have been proposed, which all have their problems: perhaps this is not the real Menorah (but what's the point of carrying it around in a triumph?), perhaps the pedestal is a Roman restoration because the Menorah was damaged during the sack of Jerusalem (no evidence), perhaps the pedestal is in fact a litter, designed to give the object stability during the procession (perhaps the least implausible explanation).

However this may be, the Menorah was in Rome, and was deposited (with other cult objects from the temple of Jerusalem) in the Temple of Peace in Rome (Josephus, Jewish War, 7.150). It may have been transferred to another place after the Temple of Peace was destroyed in a great fire in 192, and was certainly brought to Carthage by the Vandals, who sacked Rome in 455. Here, the Menorah was captured by the Byzantine general Belisarius, who took the city in 534. In his introduction to his History of Justinian's Gothic wars, Procopius states that the sacred objects of the Jews were brought to Constantinople and carried through the streets during Belisarius' triumphal procession.
If Procopius is to be believed, the Menorah was almost immediately sent back to Jerusalem, because a Jew told Justinian that the lampstand had brought disaster to every city where it had been. The object's presence in Jerusalem, however, is not recorded, perhaps because Palestine was later conquered by Muslims'.
http://www.livius.org/te-tg/temple-trea ... norah.html

However the Muslims do not record having this object, when they conquered Jerusalem in around 614.

It is all a bit bizarre.

Modern historians comment on the treasure too: ‘Gregorovius narrates that although the Temple of Peace was damaged by the fire of Commodus in 192, the authorities had enough time to transfer the Jerusalem Temple treasure to an unidentified location, where it was kept for some considerable time. He believed that part of the Jewish ritual furnishings ended up in the hands of Alaric in 410, but that the sacred treasure objects left behind by the Visigoths were carried by Gaiseric to Carthage, as reported by Procopius…. Gatto believes the Temple treasure captured by the Vandals may have ended up in the hands of the Arabs who conquered Jerusalem in 638. Eventually it fell into the hands of the Crusaders who placed it in one of the Christian churches of Jerusalem. After the Crusades, very little was found of the treasure sent by Justinian to Jerusalem ….’
So other theories have been proposed.
Given Procopius’s accounts, perhaps we should look at what was happening in Jerusalem in 614?

A Roman medieval tradition even claimed that the Bascilica of St John in Lateran still sheltered ‘the Sacred Ark of the Covenant, the Tables of the Law, the Golden Candlesticks, the Tabernacle and the priestly vestments of Aaron’

The bottom line is: Alaric ransacked Rome first. We know the Temple treasure was there, it is evidenced and taken there by Titus. Alaric certainly brought it with him into France. It is inconceivable to me that Alaric would have not have got the Treasure of Jerusalem.

As for other renderings and ideas …. It has been asserted anyway that the Menorah may not have been the original one …. But a copy …..
You pays your money, and you takes your choice.

The search for Alaric and his treasure continues ......

Of course it was Alaric II that the Germans killed in 507

I confess Roscoe that i subscribe to the theory that the Treasure of Alaric would have been guarded, protected, rescued etc throughtout the term of the Visigothic kingship, as per the traditions of the Royal and Sacred treasure at the Kingdom of Toulouse.

Why did Clovis think the Visigoths had the treasure at Carcassonne? He must have heard all about it. Where from?

PS Smith, dont keep sending me email. You are on spam and will be automatically deleted. I wont even get to see it.

What's the basis for the distinction between a 'royal' and a 'sacred' treasure?

It seems from the sources that while the Temple treasures were a part of the spoils of Alaric, they were not the whole thing, so it's probably best to maintain the distinction between the 'Treasure of Solomon' and the 'Treasure of Toulouse', of which the Jerusalem treasure was a part. And I think it's very likely that it was scattered abroad in various transactions (like Athaulf's wedding gift) and changed hands frequently.

What I mean is do the historical sources say that the Visigoths made such a distinction?

What's the basis for the distinction between a 'royal' and a 'sacred' treasure?

I dont know.

I had envisioned it as war booty tha paid the common soldiery etc ... and important treasure that was considered so important, it was not up for any negotiations.

Does anyone have any ideas why Clovis would think the 'treasure' was at Carcassonne?

Because this would mean that the 'treasurey' at Toulouse .... would have been moved. Presumably by the Visigothic royal family, because their kingdom was in danger. I think i speculated above that the Visigoths would have taken it to Septimania because it was there land ... hence that maybe why it was at Carcassonne.

As a medieval fortress it was supposed to be semi- impregnable.

If you subscribe to the Visigothic royal family having the 'treasure' then when they know the Franks were coming, perhaps they moved it?

But where to from there? Was it even ever at Carcassonne?

Is it possible it was taken to Toledo?

Or would the Visigoths have buried it in Septimania somewhere with a view to going back and collecting it?

Or did they just stash it in a royal building heavily fortified? The sources never talk about where the treasure was actually kept.
I havent come across Visigothic sources that say where their booty was kept.

At least in Rome, we know it was on public show in the Temple of Peace.

When you go and stand in the ruins of the Temple of Peace in Rome ...its unbelievable that the populace walked through this and could view this treasure...

Because this would mean that the 'treasurey' at Toulouse

Ps If you want to get an idea of what Alaric may have taken, just read what Emperor Constantine endowed the churches of Rome with via reports in sources such as the Liber Pontificalis (sp?).

Its pretty amazing....

It seems the Alanic contingent of Alarics army got hold of some parts of Alarics treasure.

Athaulfs son was half Alanic .... and he gave some of the treasure perhaps for his safekeeping.

The Alanic tribes, who were not originally Christian, had the traditions of worshipping a Cup.

These Alanic tribes people became very important early families of the region of Albi, and also the Counts of Albi.

Its very interesting to trace these Alans ... and their treasure ..... surely the basis for the Cathar treasure????

Surely, you're also familiar with the history of the Alans in Spain?

Hi Roger,

No actually, i'm not.
I will go and investigate. Only looked at them in France so far .....

Horse breeders par excellence.

I've only been interested in Goars Alans ..

I am interested in why Merovingian kings favoured Alanic advisors in the Aquitaine ... and why they are are said to be hostile to the Alans of Brittany.

So what was Sauniere selling over and over again? The Menorah? Why would an Arian (Alaric) give a damn about a Jewish trinklet. It's weight in gold would be more valuable and it's so easy to melt gold.

Why would Solomon's Temple treasure be worth more to Alaric and his army than any of the Roman treasure that we know he was given by the starving people of Rome?

Remember that so far in this area there has only been found some gold ingots and some partially smelted Arabic Coins and these were found between Montsegur and Narbonne. Not forgetting the Shepherd boy find at La Soulane, at the eastern point of Lincoln's pentacle of mountains.

Sauniere's "treasure" could be any of these

Roscoe,

So what was Sauniere selling over and over again?

What do you mean? Who said he was selling anything over and over again?
I don’t think he was selling anything personally.

The Menorah? Why would an Arian (Alaric) give a damn about a Jewish trinklet. It's weight in gold would be more valuable and it's so easy to melt gold.

Roscoe – even if the Menorah turned up now, people wouldn’t consider it a ‘Jewish trinket’. LOL. And I never ‘get’ the argument that Arians wouldn’t have given a damn about Jewish roots of Jesus. They still worshipped Jesus you know…. They just didn’t think he was God Incarnate. A theological argument.
the clearest picture of Arian beliefs on the nature of the Trinity: God the Father ("unbegotten"), always existing, was separate from the lesser Jesus Christ ("only-begotten"), born before time began and creator of the world. The Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. The Father was seen as "the only true God."

Arians would have valued Jewish Temple treasure, linked to Solomon, the family of Jesus …the same way people would be awed today.

Why would Solomon's Temple treasure be worth more to Alaric and his army than any of the Roman treasure that we know he was given by the starving people of Rome?

Because of its symbolism. Its history and its link ancient history.

Remember that so far in this area there has only been found some gold ingots and some partially smelted Arabic Coins and these were found between Montsegur and Narbonne. Not forgetting the Shepherd boy find at La Soulane, at the eastern point of Lincoln's pentacle of mountains.

These are not in league with any possible buried Visigothic treasure, or even the tomb of Alaric if it is ever found.

Sauniere's "treasure" could be any of these.

Yes, if you think it was a treasure he found.

And why on Earth would Jewish Temple treasure be linked with the family of Jesus? Jesus who said that it had become a "den of thieves" (Mark 11:17) and foretold its destruction (Mark 13:2)?

bergeredearcadie:

Read what you put up, Jesus was referring to the Temple not the Treasure, and foretold the destruction of the Temple not the Treasure.

And why on Earth would Jewish Temple treasure be linked with the family of Jesus?


Jesus was from the line of David. King Davids son Solomon built the Temple and placed its furnishings there. DUHHH!
United Monarchy and all that.

Jesus who said that it had become a "den of thieves" (Mark 11:17) and foretold its destruction (Mark 13:2)?

Dont you understand Jesus ; ) He wept for what the Temple and Jerusalem had become ..... he most certainly thought many things .... but to me it is impossible that he was disowning his Jewish roots.

Stop thinking like Christians
Jesus wasnt a Christian ; )

PS Jesus was referring to the Temple not the Treasure

I think it is highly unlikely that Jesus and any other Jew viewed the Temple furniture and treasure in the way that we do. The Menorrah represented Israel ... the Temple their faith and life stc etc.

Hence the wink and lol.

It goes deeper than that but we'll leave it alone to ponder why the inordinate pinpoint accuracy that's required in describing edificies of a religious nature and why and if the distinction should be made between that and the treasure.

After all I did post this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2177
Plantard's Temple
http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id133.html
[quote]What was the secret of Angélique LENOIR? Why did she publicly claim to have destroyed all the deeds, papers and manuscripts that had been entrusted to her? Abbé DELILLE, like André CHENIER, referred to the ‘documents of the TEMPLE’! But which TEMPLE? That of RENNES, or that of the Templars? Or the mystery of the Temple perhaps?[/quote]

Most people think that's because of the moneychangers in the temple.

I think moreso, he was referring to the Sadducee faction (pro-Roman/pro-Herodian) who now ran & controlled it.

It wasn't the building he was angry at, it's over who controlled it.

It wasn't the building he was angry at, it's over who controlled it.

Exactly

N.T. was pro-roman anyway it wouldn't have been left in the Bible if that was the case. They would have been critising themselves.

I know that Jesus didn't disown his Jewish roots...that's not what I was getting at. I know that Jesus loved the Temple (he called it "my Father's house" after all) and was angry at the people controlling it. I was asking why a 5th Century Visigoth would think that any of the items that remained intact from the Temple treasure had any connection to Jesus' family.

Besides, Jesus did have something to say about earthly treasures...

"Do not accumulate for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal. But accumulate for yourselves treasures in heaven..." (Matthew 6:19)

To put it even more directly, Jesus and his family had nothing to do with the Temple (except perhaps very indirectly through Zechariah, wife of Elizabeth, Mary's cousin), after his death his followers were often expelled from synagogues and James his brother was allegedly killed by the Temple leadership.

According to Robert Eisenman, James was killed by Saul/Paul of Tarsus himself. Of course, I'm not sure if that's true, but it's an interesting theory.

If not, then he was certainly killed by other members of the Sadducee faction ... with which, as I've said, it's clear that Saul/Paul was allied with, regardless of his claims of being trained by the Pharisees.

Just read Hyam Maccoby.

Jesus was a anti-Roman Pharisee, Paul was a pro-Roman Sadducee. That's the beauty of the hijack that took place.

Let's see...Paul as an ally or even a member of the Sadducees...

"Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?...But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." (1 Corinthians 15:12, 20)

Josephus on the Sadducees:

"But the Sadducees [...] take away Fate entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men's own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in the Underworld." (Jewish War, 2.162-166)

Luke on the Sadducees:

"For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both." (Acts 23:8)

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyam_Maccoby
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/relatio ... dducee.htm
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

Was the source of his idea of the risen Jesus Judaic or from Greco-Roman mystery cults? Remember the Pharisees believed the resurrection would occur far in the future, on the Day of Judgement.