> I like the cut of your verbal jib, so I will turn you on to a
> document you might enjoy finding, called the Quattor
> Coronatorum, a Masonic document from the 1600's, a handbook,
> actually, for Freemasonry, which traces the history of the
> Masons from the Flood, among other things. A footnote on p.
> 100, to a mention of the Great Pyramids of Egypt's
> construction, quoting D. Siculus reads in part:
> "Others call them artificial Stones made on the spot."
> This above is actually paraphrased from Lacius Curtius' salvage
> of the Histories of Diodorus Siculus, that have come down to us
> Go to p. 219 and read vs. 5-8(more if you like). You'll see:"8.
> Certain Egyptians would make a marvel out of these things,
> saying that, inasmuch as the mounds were built of salt and
> saltpetre, when the river let in it melted them down and
> completely effaced them without the intervention of man's
> Unfortunately, the Quattor document page 100 that I have is in
> a file that I can't put in this post, but I could e-mail you
> the page if you like, so you could see it for yourself. Even
> so, the document it quotes is clickable, and checkable, as I
> have provided a link to.
> So, it boils down to: will the academic mainstream take a hint
> from ancient sources as to how the GP's were constructed? How
> hard would it be to look into? How did Egyptians, in Ptolemeic
> times, know anything about 'artificial Stones', as the
> inventors, the Romans, had 200 years before they would take
> over the Black Land? How would an Egyptian priest that Siculus
> had access to, know anything about concrete(artificial stone)?
> What does vs. 8 mean? It sounds like the builders let the Nile
> waters into prepared areas where the mounds of ingredients were
> "effaced"(or transformed?)
There was a sub-thread on this last year.
As some of the content of this thread must clearly have slipped your mind in the interim, let us just go over it again.
1. The Quator Coronati lodge was not established until the late 19th century.
2. There is no such thing as a 'Quattor Coronatorum ... Masonic document from the 1600's'.
3. As you yourself confirmed, the passage to which you refer comes from Anderson's Constitutions of 1738. In the relevant passage, the author references Diodorus Siculus (I:63:2).
4. The foreword to the 1976 Anderson's Constitutions facsimile edition (E. Ward, ii) refers to readers who : ' ... have become exasperated by the transparently fabulous history, the exaggerated claims, woolly expressions, confused thought and all the other impedimenta which for over two centuries have tantalized masonic students ... '
Why either Anderson or Diodorus Siculus should be considered as providing useful information on how the pyramids were built, I have no idea.
Post Edited (16-Jan-13 20:08)