Talk:Simon Necronomicon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Occult (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This is a discussion page for the Simon Necronomicon, not a discussion on Magic, nor a discussion of one's personal belief system. Please remember that sources need to exist and be cited in order to be taken seriously by the Wiki community as a whole.

Sources[edit]

There are several sources linking to dan harms and co. as well as others who state that the magick in the book should not be used. The link discussing why the gate rituals should not be walked was written so foolishly that I had to stop from laughing several times. It continues to call Enki a god that will destory the magickian, however the sumerians and later the akkadians viewed Enki/Ea as the champion of mankind and mankind's savior. This is knowledge that anyone familiar with mesopotamian mythology would know. Secondly it states that the watcher is really a reference to the hebrew god. He goes on to state that the idea of a guardian spirit is merely an idea taken from cerimonial magickians. That is a totally bogus claim as there are various mesopotamian tablets detailing rituals where the Priest invokes a guardian spirit to watch over and protect as well as carry out the instructions of the Priest, such as the ritual found in the tablet of sippar. Despite the fact that current articles dealing with the magick contained in the book lack any real depth or knowledge of the subject, in the past I have provided links to websites, etc. of various individuals who have good things to say about the magick contained in the Necronomicon, especially by those who actually work the book's initiation rites, the links are always taken down. Why is this? -Ashnook —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.253.95 (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So far, every such link I've seen has either been self-promotion or a link to an organization instead of an article. It's possible that a quality article endorsed by a casual reader might be taken down, too, but nobody's tried it yet. Danharms (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Fictional[edit]

This can be read as a comentary on the topic of this wiki page: Why do people continue to perpetuate the kind of thinking portrayed in this Wiki article? Is it because we, as a society, Have decided that the diference between fiction writing and facual infomation is no longer appropiate? My first point is that the Neconomicon is. . .( get this!!). . .FICTION. I must admit that as a fictional literay device it is very well used by Lovecraft, however, That all it is. So, A book by some loser named Simon will be by defintion. . .(get this, people). . .FICTION. My second point is in reference to the point made by other loser, in this discussion page,(sorry if I offend you, but if you think this way maybe you need to be offended) that the Simon book should be evaluated on its merits is ludicrous(sp.). Maybe that think that Conan the Barbarian books should be studied in anthroplogy class because that are good descriptions of acient cultures. All you D&D reject should get over themeselves and ralise that there is no book that can bring you power through spells and acient incantations, at least not by H.P.Lovecraft. WEW, PhD 9:32 August 2006

To whoever posted the above: It is quite obvious that you know little to nothing about history or magickal theory. First you state that it is "by definition" a fictional work, yet you give not definition of what "fiction" is. If you mean created, than your going to have a hard time proving your case since most relgions and beliefs were created by man. The Book of Mormon was written by a man, yet it is a widly accepted relgion. The majority of the angels and demons found in the Solomonic texts are not found pre keys of solomon which would indicate that at some point either a person or group of people created their names and seals, yet the solomonic texts are accepted as being valid magickal texts by virtually every magickian. The Simon Necronomicon is even more valid that the Solomonic texts though, because out of the 100s of spirits and gods listed in the book, every one can be traced back to ancient mesopotamia. Even the religious practices contained in the book can be traced back. It sounds like to me that you have never actually studied the Simon Necronomicon. Rather you have read a few Lovecraftian books and became rather confused about the meaning of "Necronomicon" and how it applies to the Simon book. Your very sentence "no book can bring you power" heralds your real understanding of the occult in that most magickians do not seek power but rather understanding of the esoteric universe around them. While I do not take offense to your comment about D&D rejects, I am sure that many would as many practicing occultists are respected bankers, lawyers, buisness managers, etc. Let us move on though. "at least not by H.P.Loveccraft" Again, you make an assumption that is not true. You assume that the Simon book has a definate association with Lovecraftian horror when indeed there is a quite distinct brightline between the two. I am also curious as why you say that "power" can not be gained by Lovecraft. While again, Simon's Necronomicon and Lovecrafts are not, in any way, one in the same, it is clear that you have never read or studied ANY Phil Hine or at least one stitch of modern Chaos Magick theory. Nor have you studied, in any form, some of the works of Crowley whose theories are a pillar in the modern Cerimonial magick community. I will also refer you to some of the works of Kenneth Grant who has a good bit of material about working Lovecraftian material as a magickal paradigm. Not that it really matters in this discussion though because, once again, Simon's book as almost nothing to do with Lovecraftian horror. The Simon Necronomicon is, in summation, a workbook for those who want to work with ancient and primordial forces that our ancestors worshiped thousands of years ago...Forces which were not created by Lovecraft, but rather dietized by the Sumerians, Akkadian, Babylonians, etc. thousands of years ago.
  --Ashnook 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You know if you actualy knew anything about summerian mythology you would know that there are not deities that match the one in simon's book therefore there is no connection to anything Lovecraft. If you wish to believe in magik, that fine what I object to is that becuase a guy (Simon..) wants to hoax you into buying his book an ties it into soem fantastic horror fiction you acsribe some power to this hoax or to a fictional book used as a plot device.
Oh by the way beacuse you read a bunch of book by the "so called experts" doesnt give your point any credence. What you need is to get a Phd in summerian mythology and then you might have a point. I could easily say that becuse I have read all the Lord of the rings plus all the suplematal works his son Christopher published after his death, that I can atest that Sauron lurks in the dark reaches of the world and that we have to find the Grey Heavens to get the elves to save us!!
Again. . the necomonicon is fiction and simons necronomicon is a hoax to make people spend money. Neither have anything to do with primordeal forces.
And. . primordeal forces that rule the unknown cosmos have no more to do with the necroneomicon than package of Catsup.
here are some website that can help:
http://www.hplovecraft.com/life/myths.asp
http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/assyrbabyl-faq.html#a1.5
P.S. you got to do alot to get any of the god of Summer and Babylon to match any of the Lofrcraft deities
WEW, PhD 11:40 August 2006

Isn't the opening paragraph misleading? The "actual" Necronomicon is ficticious. That's like saying the "actual planet Krypton". Not sure how to revise it though. Roygbiv666 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Following article identifies 'Simon' as Peter Levenda and gives a little background on the book's creation.

http://www.nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=8374

First off, this discussion has nothing to do with the validity of Magic(k) as a belief system. This book was loosely based on H.P. Lovecraft's version, sharing some features and themes, but is inconsistent in several places that many fans find important. This is a fact. This book is also a hoax because it is false that "Simon and his associates were... introduced to a copy of the Greek Necronomicon by a mysterious, nameless monk." No genuine Necronomicon exists, just as no genuine One Ring or Excalibur exist. If a book was written named 'Necronomicon" it would be just as false to call it the true original as it would to call a sandwich 'Necronomicon.' I think the distress of Lovecraft fans comes from this book not being entirely faithful to the word or the (assumed) vision of its inventor, who is indisputably H.P. Lovecraft, and is therefore a poor version. That being said, I do agree that this article needs to be revised because it is almost universally disdainful (too many slyly injected 'supposedlies' and 'allegedlies'). We should treat this book as fiction, a version of a book invented but never written by Lovecraft, a version that has caused some degree of displeasure among Lovecraft's fans, and one that has been treated as factual by some. We should, of course, include a description of its contents and so forth, as is usual for any book. JES 12:20 CST August 2006

All of the following dieties are listed in the Simon Necronomicon (though not a complete list): Marduk, Shammash, Enki, Anu, Enlil, Inanna, Ereshkigal, Nanna, Nergal, etc. These are just a few of the gods listed in Simon's book. Oh and guess what, all of them are mesopotamian. Let us not also forget that a good portion of the book is used to list 50 spirits. They too are mesopotamian and can be found in the Enuma Elish to be exact. It is quite obvious to me that you have never even opened the Simon Necronomicon. Your right on one point though, the fact that I read books (a foriegn concept it seems) does not give any more credulence to what I am saying. What does give it more credulence is that I teach courses over the Simon Necronomicon and the process by with magick works in the system. I do not see how you can say that it is a "fact" that the Simon Necronomicon is supposed to be, or even claims to be, the same version that HP Lovecraft spoke of. Their are only two instances of there being any parallel between the two (except of course the name "Necronomicon".) The first is the similarities that Simon mentions between HP Lovecraft's work, his Necronomicon, and some of the works of Aleister Crowly. Next is the marketing scheme slaped on the back of the paperback edition by Avon Publishing Co. You saying that the Simon Necronomicon is a "fake" version of HP Lovecraft's work is like saying that a pencil is a fake pen. At best, it is simply illogical. Even when we look to "Dead Names," only a possibility is mentioned and that is fact not by Simon's own mouth but rather him citing Kenneth Grant's theories who worked with both the Simon Necronomicon and the HP Lovecraft Necronomicon as magickal paradigms. Sorry to disapoint, but HP's Necrononicon and Simon's are in two different ball parks. You go on to state that a "Necronomicon" never existed, yet there is much archeological evidence to suggest that the summerian tradition lived on well into the time that the Simon Necronomicon claims to have been written. At best you can say two things. First, you could state that naming Simon's work "Necronomicon" was only a marketing tactic. Fine. That still doesnt mean that "Simon Necronomicon" should just be a "stub" like article about HP's work. If I name my cat "Dog," it is still a cat. Next you will say that there is no evidence that Simon's book is indeed based off of an ancient manuscript (right now, whether or not that manuscripts name was "Necronomicon" is irrelevant.) I have two answers. First is that you can not prove that there isn't. Next I will say, once again, that almost all magickal grimoires claim origins that are not entirly accurate, yet none of them are called "fake" on wikipedia. All I am looking for is some consistency. To get back on point though. Let us say for a moment that Simon's book claims origins that arent accurate. Even so, it is still a valid magickal system. (Not a reproduction of HP Lovecraft's work, a magickal system) Here is why. We know that at least 95% of the dieties and spirits in the book have appeared, indisputably, in ancient mesopotamia. We also know that Simon was well versed in Enochian and many other forms of cerimonial magick. We know still that we can sucessfuly translate the sumerian parts of the book (you can validate this yourself via Penn. University, the leading college of Sumerology.) Put it all together and you have a working magickal system. Again, all I am asking for is consistency within wikipedia. While the Simon Necronomicon's origins can not be proven one way or the other, it is still one of the most influencial cerimonial magickal systems of the 21st century. To further go on, under your line of reasoning that the Simon Necronomicon and HP's Necronomicon have like themes, one could say (again, using your line of thought) that the Christian's belief in revelation is nothing more than a fake copy of HP's work. They both speak a hellacious world full of evil with big monsters. Well heck, if it talks about evil and monsters than it MUST be a fake Necronomicon. I guess Moby dick is a fake Necronomicon too. It has a big and scary monster. Furthermore I want to back up a second. How can Simon's book be fake when it is sitting right next to me. Let us look of the definition of "fake." Fake, defined by meriam webster as "one that is not what it purports to be." What does the Simon Necronomicon purport to be exactly? "Necronomicon" of "Book of dead names" Since the Dieties invoked and called upon in the book had not been talked about for some 4-5 thousand years (with the exception of a few scholars in during the 19th and 20th century,) it is safe to say that Simon's book is indeed a book of dead names. Dead - no longer in use or no longer active (again, merriam webster.) It seems like to me, at least grammatically, that the name "Necronomicon" fits very well as the title to a magickal grimoire of Ancient magick. Grammar and language still go hand in hand right? The current article is like a review over a book on animals. Instead of the review actually reviewing the book, it's reviewing the different types of species that exist. Please folks, lets try to use at least a hair of logic here. --Ashnook 01:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The Simonomicon is both "real" and "Fictional". By using what was, at the time, little known Sumerian/Mesopotamian translations of cuniform tablets he was able to pepper them with Lovecraftian words and phrases giving them the illusion that they were contemporary in some way. The Megan Text, for example, is almost 100% from the cunieform tablets and all Simon does is add an additional CUTHALU here and there and, voila! Necronomicon material.

It's difficult to say that there are no parallels or pretenses of being the Lovecraft Necronomicon when he keeps throwing in names like Cuthulu and Azag Thoth and other Lovecraft specific words and phrases. The "Testimony of the Mad Arab" portions are obviously meant to echo Lovecraft's Mad Arab and all of the preliminary writing in the book is just more of the same, trying to legitimize the text through using Lovecraftesque dramatic devices.

If you honestly want to work with the Mesopotamian Pantheons then go to primary sources. Read Gilgamesh, for example. If I were to write the Pnakotic Manuscripts or "Fragments from Raistlin's Journals" it would be just as valid as this book. (The Robert Turner edition is far more Lovecraftian and is based more on accurate Magical Theory anyway).

Quick take on this debate. "It's fiction, because it's referred to in a book." "It's belief, because it drops names." Repeat. 96.48.136.235 (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Face it: Lovecraft was a writer of fiction. The Necronomicon he speaks of is as fictional as the Great Old Ones, and anything purporting to be the real Necronomicon must therefore be bogus.
Analogy: Diane Duane's "Wizardry" series refer to a powerful manual of magic known in this part of the universe as "The Book of Night with Moon", because it can be read only by moonlight. One of the novels in the series is titled The Book of Night with Moon, but this novel is not the magical "Book of Night with Moon" nor does the author expect any reader to think it is, or that it is in fact magical: a difference between that novel and the Simon "Necronomicon".
If you want to build your own wiki of magic, go to it! WikiMedia's software's available. But please don't muddle Wikipedia by mixing what most of the world recognizes as distinct: reality and fiction. --Thnidu (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Lovecraft-centric bias[edit]

The article criticizes the Simon Necronomicon based on how little it resembles Lovecraft's fictional Necronomicon but does not evaluate the Simon Necronomicon on its own merits as a grimoire or book concerning ancient Near Eastern magic and ritual. It's also illogical to refer to a published book as not being "real," since it exists physically and is used by various people for different purposes ranging from entertainment to sincere religious practices. The Simon Necronomicon should be viewed on its own merits as a standalone work, not whether it resembles the fictional work described by Lovecraft.

Seeing as it derives it's name from the Lovecraft mythos and incorporates elements into itself from said mythos I think it's a valid point to at least mention the fact that it departs significantly from what Lovecraft wrote. It's what you put in encyclopedias.Alex 17:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad information[edit]

I completly agree that the Simon Necronomicon needs to be evaluated on its own terms as a grimoire and/or religious text. I add into the discussion on this because there are a few areas of the article that are blatanly wrong. For example, Ereshkigal is listed as an ancient one when infact she is not. While there is a clear relationship between the underworld and the "outside" they are not one in the same. I also have a problem with this: "Much of the book is a guide to magic." This is simply not true. "A guide to magic" would imply that the book teaches the reader how to preform magick. It does not do this. The Simon Necronomicon assumes that the reader is already aware of various magickal practices such as evokation, ritual, astral travel, etc.

To be quite honest, there is enough banter about whether or not the book does indeed come from ancient origins. This banter is useless since most grimoires claim ancient origins. The goetia is given a very good article on wikipedia and about the magicks employed in the book, even though it claims to have been written by King Solomon. The current article needs to be trashed in full and completly rewritten...this time, citing actual practicioners of the system.

I would also argue that whoever wrote the original article places too much weight on Dan Harms. Furthermore, while Dan and co. consider "Dead Names" to be suspect, Simon goes into a legnthy debate with Dan on Sacred-Magick.org about the said book in which, Dan's criticisms are put to the test.

The article is really a biased editorial[edit]

The "article" is in actuality an editorial opinion by someone who has personal grievances against the Necronomicon and anyone who doesn't also stridently condemn it. It's nothing more than an attack piece, and it needs to be cleaned up to conform to the Neutral Point of View requirement or maybe considered for removal.

NPOV Dispute Resolved[edit]

After some edits and cleanup, including the replacement of loaded terms with more-neutral ones, I believe that the key complaints in the NPOV dispute have been resolved.

  • Resolved? Not at all. If the article is in the category of Literary Hoaxes how is it that so much POV language asserting that the book is anything but fiction can stand? Regardless if some of the above commenters choose to believe that this sort of hogwash is real or not, there is no refernceable evidence that the book is anything but a hoax and fiction. 210.239.48.141 07:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Despite its detractors, this book has not been proven to be a hoax and is in fact used by some people as a grimoire or sacred text (e.g., see discussions at Sacred Magic forums). The original NPOV controversy that I marked as resolved related to the use of biased language, personal opinions, factual mistakes, and unsubstantiated claims in the original article which did not meet Wikipedia standards for NPOV or quality. The current article is far more neutral and is of much better grammatical and factual quality than the original. Samurai V 06:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
By not "proven," what exactly do you mean? The book is supposedly a ninth-century work, but contains reworked quotes from much later sources. Multiple sources who knew "Simon" have stated that the book is a hoax. The status of the book being "used by some people as a grimoire or sacred text" is completely irrelevant to questions of historical authenticity and suggests that your edit is based on special pleading. The evidence for the Necronomicon's status as a hoax is stronger than that for other works in the same Wikipedia category. To remove the article from this category, you should directly address that evidence in the entry, or you should challenge the standards of the category itself (which seem ambiguous). --Danharms 20:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this is much better. JES 8-6-06

Controversy[edit]

Given the release of Dead Names, I've created a new section entitled "Controversy" to deal with the Necronomicon's historical accuracy. The former first paragraph was a good start, but its position really wasn't appropriate - the article needs to explain to people what the Necronomicon is before it starts covering the debates on the topic. I've tried to keep the section short and as reflective of NPOV as possible.

I respect the views of those who wish to discuss the book's magical merits, but there are plenty of people who are also interested in the book's historical origins, as Simon's latest work proves. As such, both topics should be covered in the article. -- Danharms

I've reverted back the discussion of "evidence", as it gets us into the sticky matter of what "evidence" is acceptable for a magical working.

As there's no better place for this, I've also removed the references to Simon's system being derived from the Kabbalah. Some of it is, but much of it is indeed Mesopotamian, even if it likely comes from modern sources. Danharms (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dan we tolerate you when you enter our forums etc to make your argument. Regardless of what you think some people use this book as a magick text and practice it as a religion. I do not have a problem with you posting your links up here. I do have a problem with you deleting ours. Please stop being a jerk and let the people who come here make up their own mind. I would like to motion that this page be protected. Those of us who practice this as a religion can not edit the article in any way without it getting deleted etc. Smasher666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasher666 (talkcontribs) 08:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Yahoo groups link is being removed because it fails Wikipedia guidelines for external links on two counts: "Links to [...] discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups)" and "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content". --McGeddon (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Smasher, I have not been deleting your links. You can check the page history. You are free to submit this page to mediation, but I doubt that they will look kindly on you deleting the entire links section simply because you are not permitted to add a link to a closed mailing list in violation of Wikipedia standards. Why not put up a web page with an article on your organization's views on the Necronomicon, and link to that? Danharms (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request[edit]

A request for mediation has been filed here but there has not been any activity for over two weeks. Is mediation still required here? --Ideogram 08:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing. If it needs to be reopened, let me know on my talk page. --Ideogram 09:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Historical Basis[edit]

Ignoring any magickal basis this book may have...

The historical controversy seems to come about because Lovecraft describes the book as: a) ancient, b) from a "half-crazed Muslim", and c) concerning occult knowledge. So, Simon writes an occult book of the same name, implying an ancient, Mesopotamian origin, which (albeit very) loosely ties itself to Lovecraft's version. What coincidence! The argument seems to be, "Well, you can't prove it's a hoax." But, here's the kicker, we're not supposed to disprove your random theories. You're supposed to prove them. It's like the "Intelligent Design vs. Pastafarianism" argument: A theory is postulated which we can't really disprove, therefore it's a valid theory. Unfortunately, that's not how this works.

If this book really does have some historical origin, then... 1) Where is the original manuscript? 2) Why is it published under a pseudonym? 3) Why can no one else back up Simon's story? Where are his "associates"? 4) Why is the supposed origin far-fetched, at best? "It relates how Simon and his associates were said to have been introduced to a copy of the Greek Necronomicon by a mysterious monk." Why would a monk have a copy of this or show it off? Who is the monk? "...came to know of the existence of the dark secrets he is writing down (by accidentally witnessing an arcane ritual performed by a cult of the Ancient Ones)." He learned an entire magickal system by "accidentally witnessing" one ceremony? The kicker is that he, oops!, died before he could write down his own name.

I could write a book explaining some vague magickal rituals and incantations to summon ancient Egyptian gods. That does not mean it should, in any way, be considered historical.

These 4 points should raise some serious red flags. Supporters of Simon's story shouldn't be saying, "Prove us wrong." They should be proving their own story. Until then, I don't understand how this book should be given any actual historical weight.

Kazakital 04:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though my words have fallen on deaf ears. This is what I love and yet also loathe about any discussion over the book. There will always be someone who says "The book's magickal use aside..."
We can not ignore the books magickal basis since it is a book about magick. If we were discussing a book about elephants, you would not ask us to leave elephants out of the discussion. It is illogical at best.
For the moment let us concern ourselves with your a, b, and c.
A.)The Necronomicon dates itself at 700 A.D. The earliest known Qur'an is dated to around 790. With a difference of only 90 years, it would seem that the Qur'an fits the bill as being "ancient".
B.)Muhammad wrote the Qur'an based on what the "voices" told him to write. While I am certainly not advocating that Muhammad was a half crazed muslim, hearing voices could be interpreted as such.
C.)The Qur'an certainly has occult, or hidden, knowledge.
For your reasoning we can deduce that the Qur'an is actually the book that Lovecraft spoke of. That must mean that Simon's Necronomicon, the Qur'an, and any other book that is old, written by a muslim, and speaks of hidden things is really just a rip off of Lovecraft. What coincidence!
You have used a classic debate strategy. You have selected one very small contention to attack, while ignoring the rest of it. "Well, you can not disprove it." You are correct, I did say that. I also stated that since over 90% of the book can be traced back to Mesopotamia, it can not be called a hoax since "hoax" would imply the book to be entirely false. If you are to say that the Sumerians never worshiped Nanna, Enki, etc. that is your buisness...but you would be wrong. Let us discuss "random theories." The book is centered upon a system of "gates" or exploration of some realm outside of our conscious mind (be it sub-concious or divine.) Hrmm, I seem to remember a little something called the Tree of Life which Jewish and Hermetic mystics have been exploring for hundreds of years. It would seem, to me at least, than the exploration of a divine and/or sub-conscious realm is not just a "random theory." Catholics have been using invocations for over a thousand years. The Necronomicon's use of invocations thus does not seem to be just some "random theory." And before you rebuttle with "magick aside," let me remind you that it is a book about magick and thus we can NOT leave it out of the discussion...Unfortunately, that's not how this works.
Let us now look through your numbers 1,2,3, and 4.
1.)The original manuscript is discussed in legnth in "Dead Names." At any rate, none of the original manuscripts of messages received by Muhammad have been found and as the story goes were destroyed. Why then is there only one sentence in the Qur'an's wikipedia article that comes even close to citing criticism about this, yes there are three full paragraphs of criticism in this article?! Edward Kelley helped create the magickal system known as Enochian, Kelley being a known fraud. When we jump over to the section on enochian magick on wikipedia we find only three sentences discussing this. Most religeous and occult texts have dubious origins yet we do not find crazed zealots on those respective wiki articles trashing them as many of you seem to be trying to do with the Simon Necronomicon article.
2.)Many religeous and occult texts are printed under a pseudonym. Many scholars have indicated that the "four gospels" found in the Holy Bible were not written by Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Does this mean that we should dismiss everything that those gospels say? Most of the medieval grimoires used pseudonyms or ficticious authors, yet I do not see you over at the "Key of Solomon" wiki article demanding to know its historical significance.
3.)Slater and Barnes have passed away, but I am quite sure that they would back up his story if they were alive. Furthermore, we have long since established that Simon's story is irrelevant to the majority of the contents in the Necronomicon since the myths and magick of it can be traced back to Mesopotamia.
4.)The monk is discussed in length in Dead Names. As per the "Mad Arab," I am very glad that you said what you did because it proved that you have not taken the time to study the tome before speaking on it with such authority. The "Mad Arab" states that he spent several years studying magick after witnessing the Opening of Ganzir ritual. Even if the "Mad Arab" never existed, it is no secret that many religeous and occult texts use a fictional protagonist in which the reader is supposed to gain knowledge and insight from.
To the occultist, the incantations are not vague at all once a bit of study and practice have been put into it. On to your book example. If the incantations in your book were from ancient origins or at least represented ancient egyptian magick, than certainly it could be used as a historical piece on Egyptian magick.
I have only cited "prove us wrong" in one sentence and even then quikly moved on to a much larger contention that you and others have completley ignored. As far as us giving you our side of it, we have been doing so in every single post while you and others have simply chosed to ignore the crux of it.
I am also curious as to why examples from Dan's book are given, yet only two sentences talk about "Dead Names," neither of which are Simon's rebuttles to Dan and Co. The article was quite fine the last time that I was at the discussion page, yet once again the neutrality of the article has been diminished.
Ashnook 13:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, yes, we can discuss the authorship of a book about elephants without once needing to mention elephants. The problem isn't with the subject, the problem is with the authorship. Two different things. Secondtalon 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I have edited is under Controversy: “See this article's discussion page for related debates.”
The magickal and historical aspects of a text are separate issues. I am not interested in whether or not X believes the magick works. This is what was meant by “magickal basis aside.” The same does indeed apply to the Bible, Quran, etc. except we’re not talking about them on this page. Nor did I cite them as historical texts- not everything in them has historical basis, as you have pointed out, which is why it would be in error to consider them as such. This is not illogical at best.
As for the, “You have used a classic debate strategy…” paragraph: are you saying that because the book drops some ancient names and derives its ideology from a common mindset, that it must have been written in the 700AD, just like it claims? When I call the book a hoax, I am not referring to the gods listed in it.
The Quran could be the book Lovecraft spoke of if it (completely coincidently, just like Simon’s) met all of the previous criteria, shared the same name, dealt with multiple deities split up into 2 categories of “Elder” and “Ancient” verities, suddenly popped up in the 1970’s, and mentioned Lovecraft in its introduction.
1, 2, 3, 4, again
1) The fact that no one discusses such matters on other boards is tragic, yet irrelevant. We are discussing it here. Your “crazed zealot” comment also serves no purpose to this discussion. Just because people disagree doesn’t make them zealots. I do not care if the manuscript is discussed, where is it? Stop falling back on, “well the Quran does it too, and no one says anything about it!”
2) Simon’s version was published in the 70’s and 80’s. His name was not lost to antiquity nor was the pseudonym used to protect him from persecution. Anything attempting to be serious usually draws suspicion when it’s published under a false name.
3) “Slater and Barnes have passed away, but I am quite sure that they would back up his story if they were alive.” Yet they aren’t alive and you don’t get to decided what they may have said. I am discussing Simon’s story. My entire point is Simon’s story. If his story and the work don’t jive, something is wrong. Just because there are some names dropped in the book doesn’t make it legit, which is the point of the Egypt book example.
4) If the “Mad Arab” was just a colorful illustration, who wrote the real book? Is it possible that Simon wrote it and made up an interesting origin? If the monk was a real person, my questions from the last post are still valid.
The Egyptian book I mentioned writing could be regarded as a contemporary work based on Egyptian magic, not historical.
You have given me nothing from “my side” in your post and even resorted to calling me a crazed zealot after one response. Good job establishing neutrality. Yes, maybe the magick is functional, but that does not mean the book’s origins are what Simon claims. I am attacking Simon’s credibility and story, not the magick’s. Dropping names and ideas does not make something historical. Please enlighten me what “crux of it” I’m still missing out on.
Kazakital 04:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Having a conversation about the mental states of the deceased is not appealing to me, but I should comment nonetheless.
A book is a book. It has a context in which it is written and purveyed, and that is a valid topic for discussion. Arguing that the book is magical and can be considered in no other context violates the idea of free inquiry.
A document is not a "hoax" based on its content - a high degree of factual content just makes a hoax more effective. It means that the document does not originate from the person, place, or time period to which someone attributes it.
In terms of Wikipedia precedent, both the Bible and Qur'an entries also contain sections on criticism of the book in question. An allegation that the article violates NPOV must deal with it in that context.
On Dead Names - it'd probably take just as much effort to expand that section as it does to complain about it here. (Amusingly enough, even the two-line mention wouldn't be there if not for a conversation I had with a friend.) --Danharms 02:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"Hoax" is defined by American Hertiage as "An act intended to deceive or trick."
I suppose if one were reading the book for a leasure read than he or would be deceived. If an occultist were reading it, whether or not the Mad Arab wrote it would be entirly irrelevant. Only the Mad Arab's journey is important to the text. His identity is also highly irrelevant. As I have continuously stated, many grimoires are written under the name of either a ficticious person, a pseudonym, or falsely attributed to a historical character. The occult reader knows that the author of the original manuscript is irrelevant, rather it is the journey of the supposed author that is important. From here we see that there is not deception or tricks played on the reader who opens the book with an occult interest.
As citing the criticism of the Bible and Qur'an, we see that the criticism section is rather small and brief compared to the sections that contain information about those books. At this point I think to myself that the section of the article that deals with magick is rather small considering that magick is what the book is about. I then realize that the fault lies on myself and other praticioners for not expanding that particular section, which I plan on doing in the near future.
At any rate, I do appologize to both Dan and Kazakital for useing the word "crazed zealot." That was obviously out of line on my part.
Ashnook 07:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

When the tire meets the tarmac, it turns out that "magick" is just glorified make-believe and therefore utterly uninterested in such boring things as facts, to say nothing of historical accuracy. Trying to separate hoaxes from magick is futile, because the difference is quite literally all in the wishful thinking of he who makes the distinction. Luis Dantas (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The other books referenced in this discussion DO have a textual history and we can look at older and older manuscripts to identify errors in translation and explore various versions. The books of the Bible and other religious texts of antiquity do not exist as a single MS published by ONE person in the late 1970's. For the book to claim ancient status, which it does, it must therefore have an academic footprint. There must BE originals in existance somewhere. I attest that the only originals you will find are some translations of cunieform tablets and none of them will include the names of Cuthulu, Azag Toth, Nyarlethotep or other Lovecraftesque names. The text claims to be what it is not. There is no way that this modern invention can be an ancient Arabian text of the Mad Arab. We cannot simply ignore the preface material of the book and try to attack the meat of it since no edition was published without that material. We approach the book as a whole as published and we find that the claims of the "historical material" fall down.

The argument that ancient texts and grimoirs are often associated to psudonames is irrelevant because this would fall under modern scholarship. Budge did not change his name when translating the Egyptian Book of the Dead nor does Danny P. Jackson hide his name when translating The Epic of Gilgamesh so why would "Simon" hide his name if his scholarship was anything other than bogus? Even the translators of modern versions of texts such as the Torah do not hide their names. All of the above can also produce originals documents from which the translations are taken. You will never find an "interlinier" version of this book.

The Simonomicon was created simply to capitalize on the Lovecraft mythos and oddly enough corresponds in time to the same period when Lin Carter was putting out collections of Lovecraft's stories (c1971~1980). Carter was, inadvertently, creating a market for the Necronomicon and people always asked about it at Occult shops worldwide.

I think what most of us want is to see original texts. We want to see alternative translations, we want to see something that legitimizes Simon's claims that this is anything other than a work of fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.213.213 (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In music[edit]

How many of these actually belong in this article? Many seem to refer to just the Necronomicon (not necessarily the Simon Necronomicon), or just to the Cthulhu Mythos in general. For example, Metallica's "The Thing That Should Not Be" paraphrases the "strange eons" quote Lovecraft attributed to the Necronomicon and alludes to several entities from Lovecraft's stories, but AFAICT doesn't mention anything from Simon. "The Call of Ktulu" is an instrumental! — Gwalla | Talk 02:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And they just keep piling up. I'm tempted to fry every last one of them.
I took the liberty of removing the list. It was getting too large and frankly, since there's the Necronomicon, a fictional book, and the Simon Necronomicon which is not, it's hard to tell which version each song refers to. 69.64.10.249 16:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC) and many of them seem to refer to the Cthulhu mythos itself, not necessarily the Simon Necronomicon Secondtalon 14:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC) - yeah, I'm 69.64.10.249.. I have a bad log-in habit.

Article Quality[edit]

This article is .. well, obviously it's the work of many people with competing biases... biasses.. biasi... that humor aside, the article itself flip-flops between defining the book as being a representation of or inspired by Lovecraft and it being a book that arose of it's own accord that just happened to share the same name and similar themes of Lovecraft's work. Now, I understand some people out there have turned this thing into their own personal religion thing.. that's fine. I also understand some of them are stupid enough to think this is a tome of ancient knowledge passed down over the eons and finally printed in 1977, not something that was printed in a way to capitalize on Lovecraft's work. That's fine too. But the whole article needs to be cleaned up to address all of those issues. I think I'll get to work on it, and do my best to keep Original Research out of it. Secondtalon 13:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to assist where I can. First off, I agree it's fiction, and inspired by Lovecraft, but to honor those who take it's content more seriously, we could offer a section regarding the fact that some people have constructed a belief system around this book. That being said, I suggest that it should not offer commentary or debate the issue of religion, but just state the fact that certain beliefs have been accepted and perhaps give a few BRIEF examples. Also, I wonder how we can find out who the actual author of the Avon book is. Ebonyskye 07:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I also think the music stuff should go. There's already a huge list of bands inspired by Lovecraft or Necronomicon on those pages (and they don't specifically reference Simon Necronomicon) and this short list is just redundant. I say save it for when the bulk of the article is improved, or move it to the other lists. I'll see if I can find them later. Ebonyskye 07:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the actual author, no one's talking. That's really what it comes down to, in my reading. The guy who is most likely the author swears he isn't, and that it's a third party who no one else has ever met. So... there's that. 69.64.3.68 11:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

AS there is no scientific evidence for "Magic" of any kind existing, at least not according to the wikipedia definition of "Magic", I think the article should regard not only the frame-story as fictional but some/most of the books contents as well. Much like the Bible and other religious texts mentioned in this discussion, simply stating that Jesus healed the sick and such doesn't mean that it should be taken as fact. There is no proof other than that piece of text that Jesus had such powers and so it should be discarded as false, however what one chooses to BELIEVE is an entirely different thing and at times so is the truth. I'm not saying it can't be the real thing, this Simons Necronomicon. I'm just saying there is no evidence that is commonly recognized and accepted that there exists "Magic".Alex 17:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Regardless of what anyone thinks many people practice Necronomicon as a religion. It could be argued that the book of Mormon is fake. Or that the Old Testament is fake as many of its stories come from Sumeria. Whatever the case it is not fair for Dan Harms to be able to have up his links telling his view if we who practice Necronomicon as a religion can not have our links up as well. There are 2 sides to every story. Wiki is supposed to be impartial. I would like to motion that this page be protected and that both sides can argue their argument and post their links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasher666 (talkcontribs) 08:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mad Arab Comparison[edit]

wether or not one believes in what the book is written about is uninteresting. with that said, Lovecraft wrote works of fiction, for all intents and purposes nothing that he wrote was true as it was all from his imagination. This article adresses Simons Necronomicon as a factual book yet draws parallels between The Mad Arab that supposedly wrote it and The Mad Arab from Lovecrafts works. This reference should be removed since comparing a work which claims to be factual to one that claims to be fictional misleads people as to wether or not this Simons Necronomicon is a part of the Lovecraft universe or not. Alex 17:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's OR and I removed it. 216.135.64.64 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The most significant aspect of the "mad arab" narrative framing in the case of Lovecraft was he was taking a pot-shot at Islam; to him and his audience, both Abdul al-Hazrad and Muhammad were "mad arabs" who went into the desert, encountered angels and demons, and emerged with books of evil. Where it ties in to Simon, both his and Lovecraft's are refered to as the "mad arab" consistently throughout, the time-frame for each is similar, as is the idea of a suppressed Greek translation by a monk whose name exists in no historical documents. The irony is that when it comes to ancient literature, there are hundreds of names of famous authors and famous works that have since been lost, but we know their names and roughly what they were about based on historical commentary that has survived. In the case of the Necronomicon, we have a work that has first shown up in the 70s with no extant historical commentary on the text itself (excluding that fabricated by Lovecraft's writing circle during the 20s and 30s) or commentary on its author. There are no historical works that just appear out of nowhere, entirely devoid of criticism and commentary by contemporaries. 209.248.160.82 16:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Sumerian"[edit]

There has been no evidence put forth that the references made in the Necronomicon are to Sumerian mythology and not Babylonian mythology. The comparisons made to dieties are made to Babylonian dieties, not Sumerian dieties. In fact, there's little chance that the writer of the necronomicon would have any knowlege of sumerian mythology, as the language's translation wasn't even close to mainstream at the time.

In a couple days I'll switch all use of the word "sumerian" to "babylonian." If you wish to contend, please post before that time to avoid confusion.

NJMauthor (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true. Humwawa turns up in the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, if memory serves, and Pazuzu is Assyrian. Thus, a blanket change wouldn't be appropriate. Plus, a simple switch wouldn't address the fact that the book does describe itself as Sumerian, which will likely confuse readers already familiar with the book. I have no objection to pointing out that the book is not straight Sumerian, but it needs to be handled in a more sophisticated way than what you're proposing. Danharms (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that the "humwawa" parallel in the Necronomicon is from the Sumerian version of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and not the more commonly referenced Babylonian version? NJMauthor (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm away from the library right now, so all I can come up with is this one [1]. Danharms (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked because the name "Humbaba" is from the Babylonian version. The Babylonian version, depending on the translation, may also include references to Babylonian gods like Ishar (counter-part to Sumerian Inanna), Nergal, Marduk, Apzu(exists as a god in Babylonian mythology), Tiamat (exists as a serpent-god in Babylonian mythology) or Ea (counter-part to Sumerian Enki).

The presence of any of these diety names suggests that your version is Babylonian.

Am I to understand that this version of "The Necronomicon" by Simon, was created/published around 1977? NJMauthor (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The introduction states it was finished in 1975. Danharms (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "Sumerian" gods listed are Babylonian, not Sumerian, with the exception of those with no name change between the civilizations. This suggests that it was based off of Babylonian, and not Sumerian, mythology. I don't see any proof to the contrary. What change do you suggest? NJMauthor (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It could indeed use a statement that most (though not all) of the beings mentioned are Babylonian, though the book itself calls them Sumerian. If you've got Dead Names to reference, it could also be added that Simon has since rejected the view that the contents are strictly Sumerian. I think that should cover the bases. Danharms (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it cannot be proven that there is no Sumerian influence, but is it not strangely coincidental that the only "Sumerian" names mentioned are the ones that stayed constant into Babylonian mythology? NJMauthor (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's saying that the Sumerian influence cannot be proven. Further, your statement here is incorrect in at least one notable case - the book repeatedly uses the name Inanna. Admittedly, it also references Ishtar, and more often, but that's enough to invalidate the thesis.
Frankly, I'm not certain why we're continuing this discussion. Even though most of the material in the Necronomicon derives from later sources, it's simply inaccurate to state that all of it does, and the entry shouldn't be changed in that manner. I'm perfectly comfortable with the language I've suggested above. Danharms (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Glen Mason[edit]

The article say Glen Mason was tried for murder. But the hyperlink leads to a former football coach whose article says nothing about murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.192.125 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed the link (which should have been done when you discovered the error). PacificBoy 21:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In-universe sections[edit]

Marked this article about fiction as not being clear about it being regarding fiction. Especially, sections:

  • Magic seems to claim that magic actually exist, it should allege that the book claims that magic actually exist, WP should be neutral,
  • Textually autenticity, seems to claim that there should be any authenticity to claim, the book either exist or it doesn't, if it doesn't this article is a hoax, otherwise there is no reason to doubt the existence of the book, it may mix whatever sources or inventions for whatever reason, whether it's sources are true or not, or, if there is an emerging Simon-Necronomicon religion anywhere, the authenticity of that religion's sources could be claimed on a separate article treating that religion,
  • Magical Power - Useful or a Cursed Book?, what insane crap is this? Move to a Simon-Necronomicon religion page, this is about the book!
  • Accusations of Black magic and Connections to Murder, noo!! This is loony indeed, anyone claiming the existence of magical powers emerging from the book should consider going to the doc asking for some Fluoxetine or better!

Said: Rursus 20:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And what about this rambling about "fake Necronomicons", there's nothing but "fake" Necronomicons, the book was a literary invention by H. P. Lovecraft, it never existed! Said: Rursus 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
In-universe tag was removed. Even if Lovecraft invented the Necronomicon, the Simon Necronomicon is an actual book, thus making your label misleading. If you have objections to the accuracy of particular sections, please contribute to or contest those sections of the entry instead of re-labeling the entire article. Danharms (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted anon edit[edit]

An anon editor recently added this passage:

The Book dates at least to the 1930's as Howard Philip Lovecraft mentioned it in a few of his tales. Some claim proof that H.P.Lovecraft made up the book himself as others calim proof that the book extisted before H.P.Lovecraft mentioning it in his tales.

While I have no doubt that this edit was made in good faith, I reverted it. In the context of this article, "the book" would normally be interpreted as referring specifically to the Simon Necronomicon, which was first published in 1977. But if "the book" is taken to mean the Necronomicon as mentioned by HPL, and if you accept the premise that Lovecraft invented it, then it does not necessarily follow that it actually existed since the '30s, just that the idea of it existed since the '30s. HPL's stories contain a few quotes and a backstory for the book; from his writings there is no evidence that he actually wrote out any more of it than that. — Gwalla | Talk 18:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Blogs as sources[edit]

Reverted edits removing my blog, based on the criteria given by the previous editor. I am not aware of any Wikipedia criteria prohibiting blogs from being used as sources - point me to it if they exist, please. Further, stating that blog content is not permissible while website content is fine is a questionable line to draw. I should add that there's at least one more blog on that list, so the change was made in a selective manner.

On the other hand, if you think the content of the page is the determining factor, please state that when making the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danharms (talkcontribs) 16:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal blogs are rarely considered reliable sources; see the link. Unless you are a known expert in this field, it is not considered reliable. The main problem is the fact that self-promotion of your own blog is not allowed according to our policy on conflict of interest. Auntie E. (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that Dan is a expert in the field, his FAQ was part of my introduction to the Cthulhu Mythos about a decade ago. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Edit in italics Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Necronomicon Files[edit]

Does anyone have a copy of this? I'd like verification that this book is talking about the Simon Necronomicon; I had to remove another source that I could see online that clearly was referring not to the Simon but to the underlying Lovecraft idea; this makes me worry that someone may have misinterpreted other sources as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Google books is your friend. Also, if one checks the bibliography in the Simonomicon (which is so commonly bootlegged that there's no point in pretending to buy it), the bibliography includes Thompson's The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia and Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; sometimes I can see links that people provide for Google Books even though I can't find them myself (it may have something to do with my connection or my country). It appears that said book is explicitly about the Simon Necronomicon. I've removed the notability tag, since I think that the Files plus the two other mentions are sufficient for this to pass WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Peter Levenda is Simon?[edit]

The article about Peter Levenda gives nice references why Peter Levenda is Simon. Do we have to copy them here, or how do you make a reference to Wikipedia inside Wikipedia? 213.243.182.196 (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We would need to use the actual citations (the newspaper article) here. However, I'll point out that the obituary/personal story newspaper article doesn't actually credit Levenda--he calls it a "team effort". But, yes, getting that in here would be good. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)