Talk:Shem HaMephorash

Creation

User:Johngagon 2006 07 26 Created.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngagon (talk • contribs) 15:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed

To keep this a quality, neutral informative article, I need to rate and cite appropriately. I'm still in the process of rating my sources and looking for consensus and congruence amongst the myriad of sources on this topic. I am only one of many students on the topic but I am one that is not associated with any particular group practicing with it. I would like to take out some of the organizational ties and opinions separate or linked instead of embedded and conform with wikipedia standards here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngagon (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment re tarot section and sources

The attribution of Shemhamphorasch to the tarot is not due to Crowley.

Crowley lifted the attribution from the Golden Dawn's Book T (renamed Liber 78 by Crowley when published in the Equinox).

The Golden Dawn were not first to attribute Shemhamphorasch to the tarot - Eliphas Levi did it before them, in Clefs Majeures et Clavicules de Salomon (http://www.tarot.org.il/Library/Levi/Clavicules%20de%20Salomon.pdf)

J. Karlin claims the attribution is even earlier, but I haven't read his Rhapsodies of the Bizarre to check his claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.178.226.97 (talk) 06:48, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Thanks to Ricky for getting a mergeto on the other page. I didn't want the redirect to negate the presence of the other article. (still new). I would like to make redirects for the other spellings though since those spellings articles don't exist. The mergefrom I added needed that other page to get a mergeto but I had a hard time finding it after my accidental redirect. Thanks again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngagon (talk • contribs) 21:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Eliphas Levi's Decans

Regarding origination with Eliphas Levi...I agree and thanks for adding that.

It isn't clear to me whether or not the Aces or 10s were removed. Based on the table added to the article, the aces were removed but based on one of the sources I listed, it says that Eliphas Levi removed the 10s. Either way, there are 4 suits x 9 minor arcana cards to assign to half the Shemhamphorash (attributing 2 angels to each decan). http://www.tarot.org.il/Seventy%20Two/.

(a note to self: get all the spellings mapped/forwarding to help all other 'seekers' of the shemhamphorasch) Johngagon 08:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Corrupted angel names?

The table under Shemhamphorasch#Angels and Demons gives the angel names as transliterations of the three-letter names, without the endings -el, -iah, etc. That's fine, but in a few cases the transliteration seems obviously wrong. These cases are:

• 27: YLTh → Yereth (shouldn't it be Yeleth?)
• 48: MIY → Milah (shouldn't this be Miah?)
• 55: MBH → Mabeth (shouldn't this be Mabeh?)
• 61: VMK → Vameth (shouldn't this be Vamek?)
• 67: AIO → Asau (shouldn't this be Aiau?)
• 70: IBM → Yekem (shouldn't this be Yebem?)

Does anyone have an explanation? Or should I correct these?

I also note that Menak (66) has transliterated Quf as a 'k', not as a 'q' as elsewhere in the list. I would suggest the spelling "Menaq" for clarity and consistency. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what are the stars on some of the names for? There is no note down the bottom to explain this! Fuzzypeg☻ 21:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

J. J. Hurtak's god-names

INFORMED1212 has edited the angel names and please do not place back on this the names from Adonai Yahweh to Zohar Haddah ... as these are not angel names but names illegally taken from a book from by J.J. Hurtak. These are not names that are traditional nor are they simply names in the Bible (as is) so to continue to place them on this page is not only incorrect as they do not represent what you are saying but they are illegal. If I see them on there again I will try to reach the editors of Wikipedia directly. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed1212 (talk • contribs)

Right. From what I can see Hurtak is a fairly ideosynchratic author and these names are not representative of any significant tradition, but are based on his own experiences. Rather than adding the names back with a citation I concur that it is more appropriate to leave them out. Quoting information and ideas from a book is not necessarily illegal. In this situation it wouldn't be illegal, although it would require a citation. But I don't think it's notable information, so we'll leave it out of the article. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The actual "Names of God" are primarily the angel derived names. It could be noted perhaps as a citation footnote that "other names of God" in the same "quantity" can be found and are sometimes mentioned (I've seen) offline amongst some members of the occult when discussing this topic. Johngagon 10:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing columns

Please don't remove large amounts of detail without first discussing. Thank you.

Johngagon 16:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I noticed that the "Names of God" article had a higher resolution copy of the exact same picture as was featured on this page, so I replaced the old one with the bigger better pic. BTW, don't you hate when you forget to sign in before making an edit? >.< Yipely 06:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Occult tarot

I've just reverted a change that renamed the heading 'Tarot' to 'Occult tarot' and changed the link to occult tarot. That link redirects to Tarot reading, which isn't really what's intended; tarot in occult usage (such as used by Levi, Crowley, the Golden Dawn, the BOTA, etc. etc.) more often involves meditation on the images, and using particular images as 'gateways' for pathworking. Divination is much less important.

Furthermore, the rewording introduces an implication that it was only 'occult' forms of tarot that people such as Levi believed could be associated with the 72 names; in fact the theory of Levi and the occultists who followed him was that tarot was occult in its very origins — 'occult tarot' would be a tautology in their eyes. Fuzzypeg★ 21:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Historians now find that tarot is not occult in its origins. The cards were made for a game similar to modern bridge. However, if you feel a distinction must be made between occult and divination, then simply edit the occult tarot page to where it's a distinct article instead of a re-directSmiloid (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So what if historians find the origins are not occult? This article says nothing about what the origins of tarot actually are. Your arguments make no sense. I've said more at Talk:Occult tarot. Fuzzypeg★ 06:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew article on shem ha-meforash

I added the Hebrew link for this article, but the Hebrew article has the name of 72 as a much lower sub-category. In Hebrew, "shem ha-meforash" is used for the 4-letter name of god, the tetragrammaton. It's use for the 72 letter name is secondary, only used by some schools of Jewish mystics. Perhaps this article should specify that the primary use of this Hebrew term is to refer to the 4-letter name of God?Jimhoward72 (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Shemhamphorasch

I just did a search on this variant of the name, and found very little in the way of WP:RS. It looks as though the normal spelling is Shem ha-Mephorash, and I think the article's title should be changed. Also, Jim Cornwell self-published (footnote 2) and shouldn't be in the article as a reference. Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but changing the article in this way would imply introducing a more traditional Jewish interpretation into the article. So, changing the name to the more accurate spelling of Shem ha-Mephorash should imply introducing at least a section on the traditional Jewish usage (which would somewhat reflect information found in the Hebrew article). The slant of the article would thus drift from its Western occultism approach towards a more encompassing, accurate article.Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, got distracted. It isn't a subject I know anything about really, but I agree entirely with what you say. But I don't know that I'm the person to do it. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

At least the spelling should be consistent throughout the article, which it isn't. Is it some kind of convention to transcribe the first shin as sh and the second one as sch? Or just a typo? --92.214.155.145 (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope I am doing this right.

According to Skinner's The Goetia pf Dr Rudd, pages 39 amd 40, Rudd took the material from Blaise de Vigenere, not the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.174.4.110 (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

mistaken correlations

the demons and correlating angels in various columns are incorrect, as is spelling and astrological markers. I'll be happy to edit it when I have more time.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealnickbravo (talk • contribs) 03:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, the "Satanism" section contained a false and uncited statement which I have removed. It previously said, "Members who belong to the Church of Satan sign letters and emails and conduct rituals with the word 'Shemhamforash', although their version of it is different and contains 72 names of demons, not names of angels or God." The use of the term by Satanists in letters and email is true but irrelevant. No Church of Satan document corroborates the assertion of its use being related to "72 names of demons." This appears to be false. The more important fact is the basis for the use of the word in Satanic ritual. Fortunately this is explicitly addressed on the Church of Satan web FAQ and is consistent with the existing magic word Wikipedia article. --RMerciless (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Table versions

I'm storing two versions of the table I made here to make it easier for everyone to switch between the two as time goes on. The doubled table looked better on my (admittedly widescreen) monitor. It may be absolute garbage on a more square monitor, I don't know. On my phone, both versions are unreadable via app, and the single row looks better on my phone's browser.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.thomson (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The single version is the one that's also currently in the article now; I think that it's more appropriate, because there is no added information in the two-rows version, it's only an unnecessary layout, which can indeed be problematic on common devices because of the width. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Single row version

Angel	Ruling angel (per Ambelain)	Order (per Ambelain)	Invocatory verse	Demon ruled (per Rudd)
1. Vehuiah	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 3:3	Bael
2. Jelial	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 22:19	Agares
3. Sitael	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 91:2	Vassago
4. Elemiah	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 6:4	Gamigin
5. Mahasiah	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 34:4	Marbas
6. Lehahel	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 9:11	Valefar
7. Achaiah	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 103:8	Aamon
8. Cahetel	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 95:6	Barbatos
9. Haziel	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 25:6	Paimon
10. Aladiah	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 33:22	Buer
11. Lauviah	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 18:46	Gusion
12. Hahaiah	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 10:1	Sitri
13. Iezalel	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 98:4	Beleth
14. Mehahel	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 9:9	Leraje
15. Hariel	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 94:22	Eligor
16. Hakamiah	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 88:1	Zepar
17. Lauviah	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 8:9	Botis
18. Caliel	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 35:24	Bathin
19. Leuviah	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 40:1	Saleos
20. Pahaliah	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 120:1–2	Purson
21. Nelchael	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 31:14	Morax
22. Ieiaiel	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 121:5	Ipos
23. Melahel	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 121:8	Aim
24. Haniniah	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 33:18	Naberus
25. Nilaihah	Zadkiel	Dominations [sic]	Psalms 9:1	Glasya-Labolas
26. Haaiah	Zadkiel	Dominations	Psalms 119:145	Bune
27. Ierathel	Zadkiel	Dominations	Psalms 140:1	Ronove
28. Seehiah	Zadkiel	Dominations	Psalms 71:12	Berith
29. Reiiel	Zadkiel	Dominations	Psalms 54:4	Astaroth
30. Omael	Zadkiel	Dominations	Psalms 71:5	Forneus
31. Lecahel	Zadkiel	Dominations	Psalms 71:16	Foras
32. Yasariah	Zadkiel	Dominations	Psalms 33:4	Asmodeus
33. Ieuiah	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 94:11	Gaap
34. Lehahaiah	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 131:3	Furfur
35. Chavakiah	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 116:1	Marchosias
36. Menadel	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 26:8	Stolas
37. Aniel	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 80:3	Phenex
38. Haamiah	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 91:9	Halphas
39. Rehael	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 30:10	Malphas
40. Ieiazel	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 88:14	Raum
41. Hahael	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 120:2	Focalor
42. Mikael	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 121:7	Vepar
43. Veualiah	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 88:13	Sabnock
44. Ielahiah	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 119:108	Shax
45. Sealiah	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 94:18	Vine
46. Ariel	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 145:9	Bifrons
47. Asaliah	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 92:5	Vual
48. Mihael	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 98:2	Haagenti
49. Vehuel	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 145:3	Crocell
50. Daniel	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 145:8	Furcas
51. Hahasiah	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 104:31	Balam
52. Imamiah	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 7:17	Allocer
53. Nanael	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 119:75	Caim
54. Nilhael	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 103:19	Murmur
55. Mehaiah	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 102:12	Orobas
56. Poiel	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 145:14	Gremory
57. Nemamiah	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 115:11	Ose
58. Ieialel	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 6:3	Auns
59. Harael	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 113:3	Orias
60. Mitzrael	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 145:17	Vapula
61. Umahel	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 113:2	Zagan
62. Iahhel	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 119:159	Valac
63. Ananel	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 100:2	Andras
64. Mehriel	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 33:18	Flauros
65. Damabiah	Gabriel	Angels	Psalms 90:13	Andrealphus
66. Manakel	Gabriel	Angels	Psalms 38:21	Cimeries
67. Eidel	Gabriel	Angels	Psalms 37:4	Amduscias
68. Hahniah	Gabriel	Angels	Psalms 106:1	Belial
69. Rochel	Gabriel	Angels	Psalms 16:5	Decarabia
70. Jabamiah	Gabriel	Angels	Genesis 1:1	Seere
71. Haiaiel	Gabriel	Angels	Psalms 109:30	Dantalion
72. Mumiah	Gabriel	Angels	Psalms 116:7	Andromalius

Double version

Angel	Ruling angel (per Ambelain)	Order (per Ambelain)	Invocatory verse	Demon ruled (per Rudd)		Angel	Ruling angel (per Ambelain)	Order (per Ambelain)	Invocatory verse	Demon ruled (per Rudd)
1. Vehuiah	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 3:3	Bael		37. Aniel	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 80:3	Phenex
2. Jelial	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 22:19	Agares		38. Haamiah	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 91:9	Halphas
3. Sitael	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 91:2	Vassago		39. Rehael	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 30:10	Malphas
4. Elemiah	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 6:4	Gamigin		40. Ieiazel	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 88:14	Raum
5. Mahasiah	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 34:4	Marbas		41. Hahael	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 120:2	Focalor
6. Lehahel	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 9:11	Valefar		42. Mikael	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 121:7	Vepar
7. Achaiah	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 103:8	Aamon		43. Veualiah	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 88:13	Sabnock
8. Cahetel	Metatron	Seraphim	Psalms 95:6	Barbatos		44. Ielahiah	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 119:108	Shax
9. Haziel	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 25:6	Paimon		45. Sealiah	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 94:18	Vine
10. Aladiah	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 33:22	Buer		46. Ariel	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 145:9	Bifrons
11. Lauviah	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 18:46	Gusion		47. Asaliah	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 92:5	Vual
12. Hahaiah	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 10:1	Sitri		48. Mihael	Raphael	Virtues	Psalms 98:2	Haagenti
13. Iezalel	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 98:4	Beleth		49. Vehuel	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 145:3	Crocell
14. Mehahel	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 9:9	Leraje		50. Daniel	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 145:8	Furcas
15. Hariel	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 94:22	Eligor		51. Hahasiah	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 104:31	Balam
16. Hakamiah	Jophiel	Cherubim	Psalms 88:1	Zepar		52. Imamiah	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 7:17	Allocer
17. Lauviah	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 8:9	Botis		53. Nanael	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 119:75	Caim
18. Caliel	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 35:24	Bathin		54. Nilhael	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 103:19	Murmur
19. Leuviah	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 40:1	Saleos		55. Mehaiah	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 102:12	Orobas
20. Pahaliah	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 120:1–2	Purson		56. Poiel	Haniel	Principalities	Psalms 145:14	Gremory
21. Nelchael	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 31:14	Morax		57. Nemamiah	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 115:11	Ose
22. Ieiaiel	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 121:5	Ipos		58. Ieialel	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 6:3	Auns
23. Melahel	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 121:8	Aim		59. Harael	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 113:3	Orias
24. Haniniah	Zaphkiel	Thrones	Psalms 33:18	Naberus		60. Mitzrael	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 145:17	Vapula
25. Nilaihah	Zadkiel	Dominations [sic]	Psalms 9:1	Glasya-Labolas		61. Umahel	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 113:2	Zagan
26. Haaiah	Zadkiel	Dominations	Psalms 119:145	Bune		62. Iahhel	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 119:159	Valac
27. Ierathel	Zadkiel	Dominations	Psalms 140:1	Ronove		63. Ananel	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 100:2	Andras
28. Seehiah	Zadkiel	Dominations	Psalms 71:12	Berith		64. Mehriel	Michael	Archangels	Psalms 33:18	Flauros
29. Reiiel	Zadkiel	Dominations	Psalms 54:4	Astaroth		65. Damabiah	Gabriel	Angels	Psalms 90:13	Andrealphus
30. Omael	Zadkiel	Dominations	Psalms 71:5	Forneus		66. Manakel	Gabriel	Angels	Psalms 38:21	Cimeries
31. Lecahel	Zadkiel	Dominations	Psalms 71:16	Foras		67. Eidel	Gabriel	Angels	Psalms 37:4	Amduscias
32. Yasariah	Zadkiel	Dominations	Psalms 33:4	Asmodeus		68. Hahniah	Gabriel	Angels	Psalms 106:1	Belial
33. Ieuiah	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 94:11	Gaap		69. Rochel	Gabriel	Angels	Psalms 16:5	Decarabia
34. Lehahaiah	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 131:3	Furfur		70. Jabamiah	Gabriel	Angels	Genesis 1:1	Seere
35. Chavakiah	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 116:1	Marchosias		71. Haiaiel	Gabriel	Angels	Psalms 109:30	Dantalion
36. Menadel	Kamael	Powers	Psalms 26:8	Stolas		72. Mumiah	Gabriel	Angels	Psalms 116:7	Andromalius

References

Is Wikipedia a demonic enciclopedia?

I am surprised with the 72 names table.

For the demons column, each and every one of the 72 demos are not only linked to their corresponding articles, but also have tooltip contents.

In the other hand, there are no links to articles, nor tooltips, in the main column, of the angels names.

This fact gives the impression that among Wikipedia editors there are plenty of "demonologists", "satanists", while there are no "angelic" editors enough...

200.233.234.83 (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Magic and other religious superstition rubbish stuff

I agree with the comment made in the previous section. The concept of Shem Hamephorash (the explicit name) is a concept first introduced by Maimonides in the Mishneh Torah to refer to what is called in Greek/Latin/English culture as the Tetragrammaton, the four letter name of God in the Hebrew Bible, transliterated into Roman characters as YHWH. This for Jews is not only the explicit name, it is also the Ineffable Name. There is nothing more to it than this in the Mishneh Torah. <s. And yet, this Wikipedia article goes straight into Magic and other mystical and superstitious rubbish that has nothing to do with Jewish religion or Jewish tradition. This whole rubbish about demons and angels is much more a Christian tradition than a Jewish one. Of course, these assertions would be only the start of very serious and long debate.

However, in relation to Jewish tradition, the article practically starts with a mention of a rather secondary and obscure manual of "Practical Kabbalah," that also happens to have its own specific entry page on Wikipedia, the Sefer Raziel HaMalakh. This is how Wikipedia correctly transliterates this rather obscure manual of magic. And yet, the notes also refer to the following rather obscure source for part of the rubbish that follows:

• Sepher Raziel Hemelach: The Book of the Angel Raziel, trans. Steve Savedow, Weiser Books, p.18

The reference format is incorrect and it does not even have an edition date at all. The transliteration of the Hebrew name of the book is incorrect, as if it is a translation made by someone that is not completely familiar with the source language itself, i.e. the Hebrew language.

I don't know if this book does exist at all, but it certainly does not look like a reliable source for Wikipedia. Can someone vouch for any signs of the reliability of this dubious source? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Warshy: Wikipedia doesn't take a stance on what parts of religion are true or false (except where modern antiscientific claims are crouched in religious terms), it merely reports what is written on the subject. And the majority of what is written about the Shem HaMephorash comes from Kabbalistic sources. Although Maimonides rationalized Judaism and the Enlightenment doubled down on naturalism in both Judaism and Christianity, the further back you go in history the more both religions included traditions that appear as magical superstition to us but were (in their eyes) "scientific" (as it were) applications of theology (the problem being not so much the reasoning as much as starting with bad data and failing to adapt to new data). Roman-era Judaism and Christianity as it was historically practiced on the ground by common people (not just written about by a few upper class scholars who were favored by later generations) only make sense if one accounts for Hekhalot literature, pseudepigrapha such as the Testament of Solomon and the Book of Enoch, and even the Incantation bowls. The Elephantine papyri and the Cairo Geniza contain plenty of magical texts as well. Medieval Judaism and Christianity likewise only makes sense if one accounts for the Platonic reaction against medieval Aristotelianism (with magic being one of the attempts to reconcile Platonic spirituality with Aristotelian scientism). Where we might read Leviticus 19:31 or Deuteronomy 18:10-12 as generally prohibiting magic, historical remains show that they interpreted those as prohibitions against specific kinds of magic (and sometimes even only prohibiting those magics as practiced by other peoples but not their own supposedly licit forms). The history of science and medicine only makes sense if one acknowledges practices we now know are superstitious (there would be no chemistry without alchemy, no astronomy without astrology, no hormones without humours, etc); nor can one begin to understand how pre-modern Jews and Christians interacted while pretending that there was no exchange of magical ideas. This is not to say that any ideas about magic or practices involving it are scientifically or theologically correct, just that it's a part of history.

That said, in terms of actual text, material on magical use of the Shem HaMephorash is just shy of 275 words, while text on magical uses of the name amounts to 200 words if one doesn't include the table. That's roughly a 11:8 ratio. You may have seen the table taking up so much space and seen it as having more prominence in the article.

As for the Savedow ref, there seems to be only one edition (so what year that edition was reprinted wouldn't matter). My own assessment as well as the consensus of academic reviews I've seen on it is that the transliteration is non-standard to the point of being difficult to read but still technically not wrong, and while it could be easily outdone by a more formal translation, it's the only one that's both complete and based on actual Hebrew Sefer Raziel manuscripts (unlike the Don Karr's otherwise-wonderful translation of the highly divergent Alfonsine Liber Razielis). Of the only two other English translations I can find, one is incomplete and not professionally published, and the other is something Giovanni Grippo made up with a few tell-tale elements of Book of Enoch and Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa destroying any illusion of authenticity. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• You call the subject of this article "rubbish". To me that suggests that it might be a good idea for you to stay away from this page. Your post exudes a loathing for the whole subject of this article. So why come here at all? That surely is not conductive for good editing, or for having a good time, for that matter.

Your claim that the transliteration of "Raziel haMalakh" is incorrect in the title of the book "Raziel Hemelach" is correct, but since that remains the title of the book, that is how we must use it. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think he actually hates the subject in itself, but only has respect for a sanitized facet he learned about in (checks user page) Hebrew school as a kid and is experiencing a normal shock from discovering the weirder history associated with the broader concept. Similarly, the average cultural Catholic would be quite shocked to see the church doctor Albertus Magnus advocating talismans that go back to the Kyranides, and Clement of Alexandria's pneumatology requires a very careful and sympathetic reading to not strike post-Nicene Christians as angelolatric binitarian heresy.
As for the book title, if we want to get super pedantic, it's really SFR R'ZL H'MLK and anything else is a contrivance to make that easier to read (though convention does favor Sefer Raziel HaMalakh). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether I like or dislike the subject is immaterial to any arguments I am trying to make here. To start with basic facts, the Jewish Encyclopedia article does not mention the obscure and secondary Sefer Raziel HaMalakh at all, and the Kabbalistic uses of the Shem Hamephorash for magical practical Kabbalah purposes is only referred to in the fourth and last section of the article. That is, only a quarter of that entire article refers to Kabbalistic, mostly Jewish uses. So that article, in my view, is still much more neutral and more encyclopedic than this one. Unfortunately I don't have access right now to the Encyclopedia Judaica on the subject, which would be my next logical stop for research on the subject. So here, obviously, as I had alluded to in my initial edit summary, the issue of this secondary and obscure manual was introduced by Joshua Trachtenberg famous 1939 book on "Jewish Magic and Superstition." You seem to believe that this alleged translation does exist, but are you able to see any real record for the book yourself anywhere? Where? Keep in mind also that Wikipedia's own page on the book does not mention or use this translation at all. Thanks for your rather long exposition on your own views of Jewish history, but please refrain from qualifying mine as the views of a kid in "Hebrew school." I won't ask for your qualified degrees on the subject and I won't bother trying to present mine here either, since all this is really immaterial for the current discussion. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This, this, and the second entry in the "Editions" section of the Sefer Raziel article make it rather hard for me to believe that you even considered trying to look for the book. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't. I asked above for someone to vouch for the reliability of this translation. I guess you did. Turns out the English transliteration of the title is so garbled that Wikipedia on this page still does not have it "right." The English title of the book is actually Sefer Rezial Hemelach: The Book of the Angel Rezial. In the table of contents you'll find such Hebrew language treasures as "Vestment" (Hamelbosh instead of Hamalbush), Ruoch instead of Ruach (untranslated for some reason; I am curious as to how this expert would translate this word), Berashit instead of Bereshit, "the Mysteries" (Hereziem instead of Harazim), and so on and so forth. These English spellings for Hebrew words don't even match the Ashkenazi/Yiddish pronunciation of Hebrew used by Lubavitch and other Eastern European charedi and Chassidic sects, as far as I know. But I may be wrong, and it is indeed "Kosher" for them. May they be healthy. It is clear now, as I first suspected, that this stuff is indeed taken very seriously by them, and so my use of the word "rubbish" above was ill-advised and will be stricken out. I shall be back here with other comments after I study these mysteries a little more in-depth. Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have observed but not intervened in the recent edits made to this page. In my view no adequate rationale has been put forward for the deletion of the table. It could certainly be revised to eliminate the sections found objectionable – I tend to agree that the portions derived from Ambelain are questionable, and 'Rudd' irrelevant – but the 72 names and associated psalms are wholly relevant to the article. They are found in Johann Reuchlin's de Verbo Mirifico (1494) and de Arte Cabalistica (1517), in Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa's de Occulta Philosophia libri tres (1533) and Petrus Galatinus' de Arcanis Catholicae Veritatis (1550) to name just a few of the earlier printed sources, none of which could reasonably be described as 'fringe' in the sense used here. I consider the inclusion of this material to be entirely within the spirit of the encyclopedia. Moreover, the rationale for removal of the table is inconsistent: why remove that and not the material derived from one of Stephen Skinner's self-published books? frankly I'd be inclined to discard practically anything written by Skinner unless it can be independently verified by an authoritative source. Similarly, why retain the sentence about the 'reversal cipher'? it references a blog post, is hardly notable, is certainly fringe, and the addition seems to have been made by the author. The section on the seventy-two-fold name is generally poor and could do with major revision. But for now I propose reinstating the deleted table to include only the 72 names and corresponding psalms. I won't proceed until those who made the recent edits comment on this, if they wish to do so. LuxInSeptentrionis (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly advise a separate interpretation of the information here, it is offensive to impose one’s own views or interpretation upon another’s own identity, culture and history., Kabbalah is the Kosher jewish name of the meditational source for mystic Jews, KABBALAH MAASIT aka practical Kabbalah is the bases of esoteric Kabbalah, Cabala is a Christain interpretation linked to many already proven false rhetorics, latin corrupted names etc and qabalah etc are other pagan based systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabala

Maybe basing all this back tp its source, judaism, angels, adam, lilith, demons etc would help explain the naming., there are many references to holy names, “the book of sacred names” https://books.google.fr/books/about/The_Book_of_Sacred_Names.html?id=be5lAwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y by Swart is very good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielRaphael.Official (talk • contribs) 05:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Table of angels and demons

Please STOP the edit warring! See: WP:BRD and hash things out here on the talk page. — Ched (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I've adjusted the title to be more descriptive. It's wildly undue to include a long demonology table written by one person in the early 1600s (Rudd's Goetia), reprinted by one person in the early 2000s (Skinner), and not the topic of any other substantial coverage. It is, as I said on my talk page, less relevant than WP:POKEMON stats. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the history of this list. It actually originated with Shlomo Yitzchaki (1040-1105) is derived from Exodus 14:19–21, and is part of Jewish Kabbalah. [1] It was only borrowed by the grimoirists. It actually states this in the article, so it's unclear to me how you came up with the above opinion, which, since wrong, is not a reason to delete the table. Skyerise (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia article does not mention Rash"i, of course, since the famous 11th century Jewish commentator and exegete was not a mystic at all, and has **nothing** to do with Kabbalah. Both the JE and Kabbalah in general stress the Hebrew expression Shem Hamephorash, which was first used explicitly and expanded on by Maimonides, as just referring to to the Tetragrammaton, nothing else. The passage in Exodus (Exodus 14:19–21) referred to does not refer to Shem Hamephorash at all, it may be in some obscure mystical exegesis connected to some concept of an angel, but it is really about the role of Moses and his staff in the parting of the sea after the Exodus. None of this has anything to do with an obscure, demonical, non-Jewish list of angels of demons that has no place on Wikipedia at all, certainly not in this article about a legitimate and non-mystical Hebrew expression that was first explained by Maimonides, not Rash"i. I will proceed with the removal of this undue detail on a completely fringe understanding of the original Hebrew expression which is the main subject ot the JE and this article. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope, we'll have a discussion about it first per WP:BRD. Skyerise (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I've removed your poll, it was unsigned and poorly worded. If you want an RFC start a proper one, otherwise we have a discussion here already. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't get to do that. It's a violation of WP:TPG. Behave yourself! Skyerise (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree fully with warshy. None of the sources Skyerise mention have anything to do with a list of 72 angels and demons. Unless there is some other source that was not provided, I plan to revert Skyerise's change as being made in bad-faith. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that the section below is badly formatted, badly worded, and does not follow any WP policies. But beyond all that it is also completely unnecessary, since we are already having the discussion here as 力 has correctly pointed out. It should be immediately removed by an admin as improper per several WP policies. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a perfectly valid poll and you know that as well as I do. Feel free to open an RFC if you want, it adds drama!!! Skyerise (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The poll has already been advertised on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kabbalah and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Occult (which is how I came here), so it probably shouldn't be removed. Isn't it just possible to convert it to a proper RfC? I have no experience at all with this though, perhaps 力 (power~enwiki)? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I technically could start a new, well-formed RFC, but I'm not going to do so. The easiest thing is for you to state your opinion right here in this section. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's always better to have two sections, one for the discussion, one for the poll. That way the opinions don't get cluttered. You don't rule this talk page. Skyerise (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about whether to include the table listing the "angels of the Shem Hamephorash"

It appears that Skyerise linked to the wrong Jewish Encyclopedia article above: I think they meant this one by McLaughlin & Eisenstein, which indeed describes a few Kabbalistic interpretations of the concept of the Seventy-two-Lettered Name (understood as identical to the Shem ha-Mephorash, see Bacher's article), one of which involves putting together the 72 letters of the three verses in Exodus 14:19-21 (each containing 72 letters) and which was first mentioned by Rashi and by the author of the Zohar. This particular scheme actually produces 72 triliteral words (McLaughlin & Eisenstein call them "names", but do not elaborate), and it appears (as explained by Skinner & Rankine 2007, pp. 71–73) that several early modern authors such as Blaise de Vigenère (1523–1596) and Thomas Rudd (1583?–1656) adopted these triliteral words with "-el" or "-yah" (both Hebrew for "god") added to them as the names of the 72 angels that are able to bind the 72 evil spirits also described in the The Lesser Key of Solomon (c. mid-17th century). Skinner & Rankine 2007 are not a reliable source (per Skinner being an occultist himself, per the publisher, and per them not citing sources), but their explanation of how the triliterals are produced corresponds with the explanation given by McLaughlin & Eisenstein, and the Hebrew names they give in their tables at pp. 366–376 (cf. pp. 405–407) also correspond with the triliterals in the table given by McLaughlin & Eisenstein. Furthermore, Skinner & Rankine 2007 contains an edition of Rudd's Liber malorum spirituum seu Goetia, and the Hebrew names (as well as transliterations) are present in the seals they reproduce from Rudd's work (103ff.), which means we have a primary source to verify the tables. However, Skinner & Rankine 2007 only ever speak of the "angels of the Shem ha-Mephorash", as if the triliteral words taken from Exodus 14:19-21 had always been understood as angels, which judging from McLaughlin & Eisenstein does not seem to be the case. Their interpretation as angels appears to be a specific development in early modern Solomonic magic (Ars Goetia), though obviously with Kabbalistic roots (perhaps the 13th-century Sefer Raziel HaMalakh, name-dropped in the article, formed the intermediary?).

I think the list certainly should be cited in our (future) article on the Ars Goetia (which now redirects to the Lesser Key of Solomon, but is a much broader concept that really deserves its own page). Whether it is also due to include in this article is up for debate. In general, this article is severely unbalanced towards its Kabbalistic, i.e., late medieval or (early) modern uses, and entirely ignores the important early history of the concept in Rabbinic Judaism and in early (pre-Kabbalistic) Jewish mysticism (compare with Bacher's article on the topic, which provides the proper balance). As long as the article is in this state, the angel list is severely undue. However, if the article would be more fleshed out, I think it could have its place here too. An important consideration is that the word Shem ha-Mephorash, or more often bastardized forms of it such as Schemhamphoras, plays an important role in (early) modern systems of magic, including the Solomonic magic of de Vigenère and Rudd as described above, but also (see Skinner & Rankine 2007, pp. 71–73) in the thought of later figures such as Ebenezer Sibly (1751 – c. 1799) and Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers (1854–1918), and 20th-century esoteric authors such as Robert Ambelain (1907–1997) and Anton LaVey (1930–1997). At the very least, a system that was developed by several authors over a span of 400 years and which is ultimately rooted in medieval Jewish mysticism is probably somewhat more encyclopedic and notable than Pokémon.

Courtesy pinging Ian.thomson, who has also taken a position on this according to the edit history of this page, and who has the majority authorship on The Lesser Key of Solomon; also advertising on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)