No, it is the right premise. According to the myth, Hiram Abiff was in Israel to build King Solomons temple. So we are still inside the same old box.
No we are not in the same box because the derivation of the supposed (but actually non-existent) Masonic word "Juwes" was said to come from the names Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum, i.e. the three Juwes. It had nothing to do with anyone being Jewish, and no connection with the English word "Jews".
One of the problems with the "Experiment" suggested is that there are many like myself who do not believe the text has anything to do with the apron found close by, nor the Killer and thus nothing to do with the MURDERS.
But then one could still try and answer the two questions. That could give some ideas for a method to discuss the text even if one does not think the text was constructed by the killer.
Now others of course disagree on this, but no one has been able to provide direct evidence of a link in the past 128 years. There is much discussion over and over again on this issue, unfortunately a consensus has and probably never will be agreed.
Well, leaving the old box and thinking new thoughts might help finding some evidence. Perhaps one might even reconsider the standpoint of not believing the killer wrote it.
Those who see the murders as planned certainly will always argue in favour, those like me who see them as random and unplanned will always on the whole argue against and probably the majority who are in neither camp will change their minds over a link every so often.
Craig, interesting point, however do we have a secondary confirmation for the lines you quote. I would like a contemporary Source/Reference for the information, did the author give one i have not read Harrison's book?
Having said it is interesting i still have to say I see little to link the writing to the killer.
Given that we have:
No 100% accurate report of the spelling.
No 100 accurate report of the text.
And actually no accurate report of the layout, there are several versions flying about as we are all aware.
The terms "neat" and "schoolboy hand" are based on reports given at the time agreed; but they are highly subjective being based on the interpretation of the person giving the report, those terms should not be taken as sacrosanct. my view of neat and good schoolboy hand writing maybe and probably are different to the next persons
Well, the graffito was also very small. Not like the more common graffiti propaganda.
Pierre, not had a chance to say hello since your return, Open to thinking outside the box, you finished your 1st post by asking 2 questions:
"1. What would happen if we forget about the interpretation of this word as having anything to do with jews?"
well yes that has already been done several times, the obvious well know version being the Masonic theories,
No. The masonic theories are based on jewish mythology. So we have the word "j e w" again and are still inside the old box.
Craig has now also offered a second view.
Iīve heard about that view before but it is still inside the box: "Jew-ry / "Jew-es". Etcetera.
I therefore do not see, how by answering that question we can think outside the "BOX", many already do believe what you contemplate.
Oh, dear. Is it really that hard? Look at the word stem, Steve. Are we really super glued to it? The first question was "What would happen if we forgot about" it...
"2. What would happen if one uses a dictionary to try and understand the word?"
Has David said already this has been looked at, i have just done an online search again, I can find nothing other than references back to the murders of 1888. Am I missing something?
Steve, look at the word stem. After you have seen it, forget it. Then you can not use it on the internet. So what is your next strategy? Thinking stepwise like this we are working out a new method.
Can one ask what your researches into the word have revealed? what dictionary have you used?
I am not discussing that matter. But that doesnīt mean I am not interested in methodology. And I am sure you have much better dictionaries than I have, even if you may not need them.
Great hearing from you, Steve, and good to discuss methodology with you!
Always willing to oblige, I'll have a go then Pierre.
1. What would happen if we forget about the interpretation of this word as having anything to do with jews? - We might end up with a theory that it has something to do with Masons.
That theory is based on ideas about jewish history. Still inside the same old box.
2. What would happen if one uses a dictionary to try and understand the word? - One would find that the word "Juwe", or "Juwes", is not in the dictionary.*
*other than as an old English spelling of Jew.
But how could one find that - if one had entirely forgotten about the word? Then one would not look for it. So what other uses of a dictionary could there be? The method must be new if we should think outside the old box. Is it a good method to continue to search for old things - wouldnīt we not just get the same old answers?
I have heard about that but we are still stuck in the same old box with it, since "Old Jewry" and "Jewes" both contain the word "jew".
"Hiram Abiff was in Israel to build King Solomons temple. So we are still inside the same old box."
Do I understand you correctly Pierre you are proposing that Juwes has no connection with either Jews or masons? if so i fully agree on the second point on the first i am undecided and open to another interpretation.
Given that i do not think the text is linked to the murder I have no set point of view on what it might allude to if it does.
I have checked online and cannot find the word Juwes, other than linking it to the text in question. i first checked this when Stephen Knights book was published long ago, there was no entry for the word then either.
I see David is saying much the samething.
if you have different information, what is it?