Talk:Shem HaMephorash/Archive 1

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 (https://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)

Angel names now have Wikilinks to articles about them. David notMD (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2021 (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)

The demons from Lemegeton's part called Goetia, or where is its origin, are most probably invalid in connection to the 72 angels/archangels. Austrian, French and Czech sources (Quintscher, Feinberg, Bardon et cetera) are writing always 72 antigenius' to 72 genius' of Shem HaMPhorash, if nothing else, both additions shall be mentioned. At least to me the evil reflections 72 to the 72 archangels of Kabelák, Jantschik and others(they're in all sources basically the same), seem to me more organic and in general less...how to say it?/Less Fairy-tale/Legendary beast/Grimoire and more like Kabala. I am not sure in either case, if it is supposed, to be there, so maybe it is worth checking. Both versions could be valid or not. 2A02:8308:313:CF00:9D4:CB34:B750:8776 (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2023 (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)

Thank you Apaugasma for the extensive review of all the sources above, and a very balanced summary of the main issues in this discussion. This survey of all the main sources and issues is really helpful. I don't disagree with anything you say above. I have two remaining questions: 1) I did not see any of the sources asserting that Rashi discussed the "Kabbalistic" extraction of 3 letter names from the Exodus 14:19-21 verses; and 2) I completely agree with you that "Skinner & Rankine 2007 are not a reliable source (per Skinner being an occultist himself, per the publisher, and per them not citing sources)." So I would not use them for any further argument on the issues here, as you seem to be doing later? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Warshy: McLaughlin & Eisenstein write: Rashi, also, in his comment to Suk. 45a, mentions this scheme (see Zohar, Beshallaḥ, 52a, and Appendix, 270a, ed. Wilna). Are they referring to the Zohar as a source for Rashi? Or what is his comment to Suk. 45a? I'm not sure, but they seem to be saying that Rashi already mentioned it. Mentioning something does not mean approving of it, however, so this serves mainly as evidence for the period in which the idea might have originated. As for the unreliability of Skinner & Rankine 2007, I would say that context matters, and that using them for non-interpretative and easily verifiable facts such as the names of the angels and demons, as well as the invocatory Bible verses (all of which are present in the text of Thomas Rudd's Liber malorum spirituum seu Goetia), is akin to using them as a primary source, which is fitting for the table (the part of the table based on the 20th-century occultist Robert Ambelain, however, is wildly undue; this table should deal only with Rudd's version and that should be made much clearer). If we use them outside of the table, e.g., for the info about Blaise de Vigenère, we should follow WP:BIASED and have something like "According to the occultist writer Stephen Skinner, ...". Actually Skinner is semi-reliable, and I do not think that he is deliberately misleading when it comes to the basic facts. We should definitely be looking for better sources though. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I believe they are saying that Rashi refers to the "scheme" of 72 letters in three consecutive Exodus verses, which is later expanded on by the 13th century Hebrew Kabbalah. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The earliest reference I've found to the Shem ha-Mephorash referring to 72 angelic names is in the 1517 De Arte Cabalistica by Catholic mystic Johannes Reuchlin. See e.g. Bernd Roling, The Complete Nature of Christ: Sources and structures of a Christological theurgy in the works of Johannes Reuchlin p. 261:

"After deriving a Shem ha-mephorasch of the 72 angelic names from the biblical verses of Exodus 14,19ff., Reuchlin makes a statement concerning the metaphysical significance of the names. [...] The names of the angels are products of the will of God. They are substantially based on the tetragrammaton, and through this connection they illumine and enhance man's spiritual return to God. [...] With the insertion of divine names such as 'El' or 'Yah', angelic names become pronouncable, and God himself (being nature) is the basis of angelic individuation."

Fuzzypeg★ 00:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have also found reference to this division of names (not specified as being names of angels) appearing in the 12th-Century Sefer ha Bahir:

"Judaic lore claimed that the Name of 72 was revealed to Moses at the burning bush and that he used it to part the Red Sea during the exodus from Egypt. Since the three verses in the Torah that describe this miracle (Exod. 14:19-21) have exactly 72 Hebrew letters each, the passage was seen as a key to the mystery of the name itself. The earliest extant text that documents a reconstruction of shem ha-mephorash on the basis of this passage is the classical Kabbalistic work Sefer ha-Bahir (Book of Bahir), first made known in manuscript form in Provence between 1150 and 1200. This central text of what Scholem calls the Gnostic Kabbalah is shaped as an ancient biblical commentary (midrash) that is focused on the divine attributes. Bahir's reconstruction of the name by the notarikon method is a perfect illustration of Kabbalistic onomatology in action. We are to divide the passage into 72 triads of letters. The first triad is formed by the first letter of the first verse, the last letter of the second verse, and the first letter of the third verse. All the other triads follow the same pattern, using the letter [sic] of the first verse in direct order, those of the second in reverse order, and those of the third in direct order again. These 72 triads constitute the 72 combinations of the shem ha-mephorash. The result is a very peculiar name indeed. Bahir calls it both 'one name' and '72 names,' pointing to an ambivalence about the name's morphology that remains unresolved." —Izmirlieva, Valentina (2008) All the Names of the Lord: Lists, mysticism, and magic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 110-111.

Izmirlieva also observes on pp.123-4:

"Although the theory of shem ha-mephorash did not become known in Christian circles before the end of the fifteenth century, the fame of the powerful Name of 72 must have leaked out of insulated Kabbalistic circles much earlier, since by the twelfth century it was already making its appearance in the Christian texts of the Latin West. The grafting of the Judaic notion onto Christian practice, however, was accompanied by a significant shift: the one singular name that is also 72 names was rendered simply as "the 72 names of the Lord." [...] Characteristically, the topos of the 72 names was linked from the very beginning to amulet use, which by itself points to the practical Kabbalah as the most probable source of the Kabbalo-Christian exchange. The place of the transaction, judging by the evidence, must have been the South of France. Around approximately the same time, Sefer ha-Bahir surfaced in Provence, offering the first mature articulation of the shem ha-mephorash theory, and the region was a thriving center of the Jewish Kabbalah. No less notably, it was controlled at the time by one of the most radical dualist Christian sects, Catharism, which no doubt contributed to the general climate of doctrinal laxity that often accompanies confessional diversification. [... T]he heterogeneous religious milieu in Provence [...] enabled, if not directly encouraged, cross-practices and interreligious exchange. The first text to document the new Christian transformation of shem ha-mephorash was the Provencal Roman de Flamenca, dating from the thirteenth century. This early source already testifies to the double practice of reciting and carrying the talismanic 72 names for protection and good fortune."

Fuzzypeg★ 02:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fuzzypeg: Thanks a lot for that! While searching for sources yesterday I also stumbled upon Izmirlieva 2008 and was absolutely thrilled to find that she had whole chapters called "A Magical Alternative: The 72 Names of God" and "Christian Culture and the 72 Names". This will be an invaluable source to expand the article. However, for the moment I'm still working on the (very substantial) pre-12th-century (and thus pre-Kabbalistic) history of the concept. I think that there's a general misconception here that the Shem ha-Mephorash necessarily refers to a Kabbalistic letter-combinatorics-based speculation about the name or names of God, but in fact that is only a relatively late and certainly derivative use of the concept. Izmirlieva briefly covers some of the Biblical and Rabbinical background on 26ff., so if you're curious you can already check there. I'll try to post my work on it tonight. Again, thanks for your significant contribution here! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, strike "tonight" in my post above and make that "in a few weeks". I've been working on it in my sandbox off and on during the past week, but I've found the topic to be so incredibly rich and interesting so as to deserve a deeper dive in the broad range of literature that exists on it. I'm still hoping to finish the section on the early history of the concept in the next week, but in the mean time please feel free to comment on my work in progress at my sandbox's talk page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I shall add further comments in due course to distinguish the later explicitly magical uses of the Shem haMephorash from its earlier philosophical and religious treatment by Christian scholars. For now it might be beneficial to expand on my previous remarks concerning the early printed works, by authors all notable in their own right, which relied on Hebrew sources. These are important in determining how Shem HaMephorash – or at least a particular interpretation of what that means – became established in the Latin world. They deserve to be taken seriously and are, briefly, as follows:

• Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Conclusiones sive theses DCCCC (1486), Conclusiones cabalisticae 56–7: Pico indicates those who can deduce the name of 72 letters from the ineffable name (deducendi ex nomine ineffabili nomen lxxii literarum) can accordingly operate through the Shem ha-Mephorash (quod operari per Scemamphoras).
• Johann Reuchlin, De verbo mirifico (1494), sig. e2v–e3v: here Reuchlin describes 'Semhamaphoras' in terms of seventy-two listed Biblical verses (from the Psalms, and one from Genesis) containing the Tetragrammaton that serve as an exposition of the divine name.
• Agostino Giustiniani, Precatio pietatis plena ad Deum omnipotentem composita ex duobus et septuaginta nominibus divinis (1513): the title (‘a very pious prayer to almighty God composed from the seventy-two divine names’) sums it up. The prayer is based on the same seventy-two verses described by Reuchlin but also takes one word from each verse as a specific quality or attribute of God. For example, from the first verse 'tu autem Domine clipeus circa me gloria mea et exaltans caput meum' the attribute is 'exaltator' (from exaltans); from the second ('tu autem Domine ne longe fias fortitudo mea in auxilium meum festina') the attribute is 'auxiliator'; and so on. In his commentary on the prayer Giustiniani provides the three verses of Exodus (in Hebrew) and describes how the seventy-two three-letter names of God are extracted; the aforementioned attributes are linked to each of these names, hence, for example, 'secundum nomen ILI id est auxiliator'.
• Johann Reuchlin, De arte cabalistica (1517) pp. 58v, 60v–61v (pp. 273–285 in the 1993 edition of Martin and Sarah Goodman's English translation): Reuchlin significantly expands on the account given in De verbo mirifico. He refers to 'Semhamaphores' as the 'seventy-two sacred names' (lxxii nomina sacra) that explain the holy name Tetragrammaton (sanctissimi Tetragrammati nomen expositorium). He includes the three verses of Exodus in Hebrew and identifies the seventy-two three-lettered divine names drawn from those; provides the Latinised names of seventy-two angels derived from the triliteral names with the addition of the -IH or -AL suffix (Vehuiah, Ieliel, Sitael, etc.) on the basis they are the expressed or pronounced (enuncianda) forms of the divine names; and the seventy-two corresponding Biblical verses in Hebrew and Latin. It should be pointed out that Reuchlin's sources have not been fully identified but are likely derived from a kabbalistic miscellany and manuscripts of Joseph ben Abraham Gikatilla's works (see, for example, Reimund Leicht, 'Johannes Reuchlin’s Collection of Hebrew Books – Its Afterlife and Influence' in Irina Wandrey (ed.), Jewish Manuscript Cultures. New Perspectives (De Gruyter, 2017) 227–242 (pp. 223–4)).
• Pietro Colonna Galatino, Opus toti christiane reipublice maxime utile, de arcanis catholice veritatis (1518): book 2 chapter 17 (see pp. 96–103 in the 1550 edition) concerns the seventy-two names of God. The three verses from Exodus are reproduced (in Hebrew) followed by ten methods (the 'prima modi' is the familiar version) of deriving the seventy-two three-letter names. He adds the seventy-two Biblical verses and single-word interpretations of the names derived from the verses in a similar manner to Giustiniani.
• Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa de Occulta Philosophia libri tres (1533) book 3 chapters 11 and 25 (pp. 225, 256–8): Agrippa refers to 'Schemhamphoras, hoc est expositorium vocant' as seventy-two names both of angels and God derived from the three chapters of Exodus; he describes how the names are extracted and tabulates these as the triliteral names and their two-letter suffix (in Hebrew), and the Latinised form of the angelic names. Agrippa's work is included here as an important and influential secondary source: in her critical edition (Brill, 1992) Vittoria Perrone Compagni identifies Agrippa's primary sources as De verbo mirifico and De arte cabalistica (pp. 427–8, 472–4).

The further spread of these ideas (particularly from Reuchlin) is adequately addressed in François Secret, Les Kabbalistes chrétiens de la Renaissance (1964), so I won't labour the point more than I already have. The other matters I'll come on to later ultimately flow from these early interpretations. Just two further remarks in closing. William R. Arnold states that the 'exact meaning and origin' of Shem haMephorash as a designation of tetragrammaton is a mystery and the ’suggested definitions of the term [shem ha-mephorash] have been so numerous as to represent almost all the alternatives imaginable’ (’The Divine Name in Exodus iii 14’, Journal of Biblical Literature 24 (1905) 107–165 (p. 157); Arnold’s own philological analysis suggests it is ‘the name [tetragrammaton] with its exact pronunciation’ (p. 161)). Its use in connection with the seventy-two names by the authors listed above is the interpretation that became dominant in the Latin world. As Robert J. Wilkinson, puts it, ‘for Agrippa, as for many Christians, the Schem Hamphoras is specifically the 72-letter name, whatever it once meant for the rabbis’ (Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God (Leiden: Brill, 2015), p. 190). LuxInSeptentrionis (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This is absolutely over-the-top stunningly great material! Dear LuxInSeptentrionis, we need you to work on this article. Could you possibly write up a section on the evolution of the concept among the Christian Kabbalists listed above in your sandbox? It should be entirely based on modern and scholarly secondary and/or tertiary sources like Secret 1964, Compagni 1992, Wilkinson 2015, Leicht 2017 (and the many others which you undoubtedly know of), perhaps interspersed with a few literal quotes from the primary sources (like I am doing for the early history of the concept in my sandbox). If you're used to doing original research (like I am too), it's not always easy to adhere to the rule of basing everything directly and exclusively on modern secondary or tertiary sources, but if you're familiar enough with the literature (like you certainly seem to be!), it should not present too big of a problem. I'd be willing to help you on every step of the way; if you have any question about how to do something around here, please feel free to ask at my talk page or elsewhere! Sincerely, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Apaugasma, particularly for the offer of help. I still need to consult a few secondary sources – notably Secret's work (I no longer own a copy and am currently relying on notes) and Ian Christie-Miller's recent 72 In His Name, amongst others – but shall try to work something up in my sandbox in the next few weeks. I wanted to include the foregoing list simply as points of reference (presented, I hope, impartially) before proceeding on to the necessarily more selective and contentious issues. Which I'll add now: all of this rather long-winded prelude is only in support of what I think is appropriate for inclusion or exclusion in the article. LuxInSeptentrionis (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

LuxInSeptentrionis, I'm watching your sandbox! Please take your time, as I am certainly doing on the part of the article I am writing (on the pre-medieval history of the concept). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Following on from my previous comments, a few observations concerning post-sixteenth century developments surrounding Shem haMephorash. Not a comprehensive list, but some of what I believe are the more significant moments in its magical use and interpretation for reasons I hope will become clear.

• Jean Belot, Familières Instructions pour apprendre les sciences de chiromance & physionomie […] Avec un Traicté des divininations, augures & songes (Paris 1624) pp. 214–224, 382–3, 392–414 (and multiple reprints from 1640 in Les oeuvres de M. Jean Belot). Belot names the seventy-two angels and their associated biblical verses, linking them with the twelve signs of the zodiac and using them for the prophetic interpretation of dreams. This appears to be the earliest text to link Shem haMephorash with the astrological signs. Belot also refers to the recitation of the 72 verses in connection with the practices of Onychomancy, Crystallomancy, and Alectryomancy.
• Athanasius Kircher, Oedipus Aegyptiacus (Rome 1653) vol. 2, pp. 267–281 and ‘Arbor Cabalistica ex tribus versibus exod. c. 14’ that forms part of the diagram at p. 287. Probably the most comprehensive account of the seventy-two names (at least in Latin), Kircher 'mostly follow[s] Moses Cordovero’s exposition in Pardes rimmonim' (Daniel Stolzenberg, ’Four Trees, Some Amulets, and the Seventy-two Names of God’ in Paula Findlen (ed.), Athanasius Kircher: The Last Man Who Knew Everything (Routledge, 2004) 149–169 (p. 157)). He links the seventy-two names to the Tetragrammaton, provides both the divine and angelic names and the method of extracting them, their associated Biblical verses in Hebrew and Latin, and the single-word attributes derived from the verses as used by Giustiniani and Galatino. Notably Kircher Christianizes the scheme by attributing the names to the nine angelic choirs forming the Celestial Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. This probably answers Skyerise's question below, although I suspect – I haven't read La kabbale pratique – Robert Ambelain might have relied on an intermediate French language source derived from Kircher. It's also worth noting that Kircher devotes space to the creation of amulets using the divine names, based on Hebrew sources (Stolzenberg, op. cit. 162–3).
• Richard Saunders, Physiognomie and Chiromancie (1671). For the most part an English translation of Belot's work, Saunders lists the names of the seventy-two angels and their associated Biblical verses at pp. 235–7. Included here only because this edition has been positively identified as a source for the 'Pauline Art', the third book of Lemegeton (Frederick Hockley, The Pauline Art of Solomon (The Teitan Press, 2016) pp. xvi–xxii; the Lemegeton is therefore 'likely to have been compiled within a fairly narrow period of around fifteen years, between 1671 and 1686' (ibid., p. x)). Saunders' book is a probable source for the seventy-two angelic names and verses included in the 'Goetia' portion of Harley MS 6483, a version of Lemegeton written in 1713.
• Lazare Lenain La Science cabalistique, ou l’art de connaître les bons génies qui influent sur la destinée des hommes (Amiens 1823). This work centres on the seventy-two angels (or génies as they are described) and their attributes, and the construction of talismans for various purposes based on these. It encapsulates a great deal of what's found in Reuchlin, Agrippa, Kircher and Belot but is a far more detailed synthesis. There's too much to recount here, but it's worth mentioning that Lenain's list of seventy-two angels was republished with other material from Kircher by Papus, La Cabbale: tradition secrète de lʹoccident (Paris: Chacornac, 1903) pp. 97–9, 136, 235–60 (later printed in English translation as The Qabalah (Thorsons, 1977)).
• A document originating with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, ‘On the Shemhamphorasch or Divided Name’, was printed in much abbreviated form as a table in Israel Regardie (ed.), The Golden Dawn: an account of the teachings, rites and ceremonies of the Order of the Golden Dawn fourth edition (1971) vol. 1 pp. 170–174, with other elements in vol. 4 158–176. Again, I won’t outline the series of correspondences applied to the seventy-two names here. The Golden Dawn (first published 1937–40) was a significant influence on twentieth century occultists and I have little doubt that it reinforced the association of Shem haMephorash with the seventy-two angels in the context of ceremonial magic.

I'll add some concluding remarks about Ambelain, Skinner and the so-called 'Viginaire' manuscript later, as there are a few specifics to unpack. LuxInSeptentrionis (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Final remarks, continuing where I left off. S. L. MacGregor Mathers issued a document titled ‘The Characters or Seals of the 72 Schemahamphorasch’ to some members of the Golden Dawn (Pat Zalewski, Kabbalah of the Golden Dawn (St Paul MN: Llewellyn, 1993), pp. 187–223). The first page of this document – it contains only a name and character of each angel and is labeled ‘(from Ar. 2495) (By the Great Magician Blaise Viginaire)’ – is reproduced in facsimile in Carroll “Poke” Runyon, The Book of Solomon’s Magick (C.H.S. Inc. 1996) p. 213; the full set of characters is reproduced, with Runyon's additions, at pp. 183–191. Runyon’s book (published by his self-founded ‘Church of the Hermetic Sciences’) appears to have been Stephen Skinner and David Rankine’s only source of information concerning the ‘Viginaire’ document in The Goetia of Dr Rudd (2007): they do not typically cite their sources but it is the only relevant item listed in their bibliography. (The Book of Solomon’s Magick was likely also Skinner and Rankine’s principal source of information concerning ‘Dr Rudd’ both here and in their Practical Angel Magic (2004) and Keys to the Gateway of Magic (2005) again according to their bibliographies, but that’s by the by.) Even so, the account in The Goetia of Dr Rudd does not accurately reflect what appears in Runyon’s book and confuses or possibly misrepresents several key points. So Skinner and Rankine’s frequently unreferenced self-published book seems to uncritically draw information concerning Shem haMephorash/Vigenère/Rudd from another self-published book but not in a particularly reliable manner. In light of that, to reiterate a previous comment, in my opinion no-one should be quoting Skinner unless his statements can be verified by an independent, authoritative source. There aren't any in this case. In fact, apparently unknown to the aforementioned authors, the manuscript on which Mathers relied for his extracts (Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal MS 2495) was published in facsimile in 1983 with a decent scholarly introduction by Sylvain Matton (‘Deux manuscrits magiques de la Bibliotheque de l’Arsenal’) in Les Vrais Talismans, Pentacles et Cercles (Paris: Gutenburg Reprints 1983). The manuscript (‘Table des 72 Anges tirée cabalistiquement des 72 noms ineffables de Dieu. Avec leurs noms, puissances, et les jours auxquels ils président dans les douze lunes avec le verset du psaume qui convient à chacun avec leurs caractères Magiques’) dates from the eighteenth century. In this the seventy-two angels are governed by the name of God and presiding angel of the twelve signs of the zodiac, taken (in a garbled state) from the ‘scale of the number twelve’ in book 2 chapter 14 of Agrippa’s de Occulta Philosophia or from Kircher's Oedipus Aegyptiacus pp. 336–7 (Matton, pp. 7–8). The name of each angel is given, the time of year they govern, their corresponding Biblical verse, and their magical seal or character. The characters (of unknown derivation) are the only novel part of this, everything else can be traced to Agrippa, Belot, Kircher or any of the earlier sources I have previously mentioned. The manuscript does conclude with the words ‘Par Blaise Viginaire [sic] grand Magicien’ but this is a false attribution: ‘en réalité, il ne s’agit nullement d’œuvres de Vigenère’ (Matton, p. 3). It is possible this or a similar manuscript (Arsenal MS 2354 is practically identical) was consulted by Lenain, and it also (from what I can gather) seems to have been relied on by Ambelain. Turning to Skinner's use of Ambelain in The Complete Magician's Tables (2006) p. 41, and cited in the present form of this article (n. 33), it should be noted that he actually deprecates Ambelain's work. He states the correspondences in question are ‘unique to Ambelain’ and ‘don’t take the lateral correspondences … too seriously’ because they are ‘only one man’s view’ (The Complete Magician's Tables pp. 304–5). This isn't entirely true (see my references to Kircher above), but it highlights once again the risk in citing Skinner's work uncritically. Finally, the 'Goetia' question. British Library Harley MS 6483 is a version of the Lemegeton written in 1712/13 by Peter Smart, one of several manuscripts he supposedly copied from papers of a 'Dr Rudd'. It is the 'latest' and 'least reliable' of the Lemegeton manuscripts because it deviates significantly from other copies (Joseph H. Peterson, The Lesser Key of Solomon (Weiser 2001) p. xii). The manuscript was first published in full by Skinner and Rankine as The Goetia of Dr Rudd (Golden Hoard Press 2007). One of the manuscript's unique features is the inclusion of the names and corresponding Biblical verses of the seventy-two angels alongside the names and characters of the seventy-two spirits described in the first book, 'Goetia'. The angels are not otherwise mentioned in the manuscript nor is their inclusion explained, although Skinner and Rankine engage in extensive speculation concerning their purpose (seemingly following Runyon, op. cit.). This is, however, a solitary manuscript containing minimal information written by the unknown and dubious Peter Smart, a fact that should be taken into account in deciding whether it is of wider significance. For reasons still unclear Smart attempted to pass off his manuscripts as either his own work, that of 'Dr Rudd' or even 'Dr Dee', when for the most part they were simply copied from printed books dating to as late as 1690 (A. E. Waite, The Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross (Rider 1924) pp. 397–401; Frances Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (Routledge 2001) pp. 257–9; Paul Kléber Monod, Solomon's Secret Arts (Yale 2013) pp. 145–6). Everything under his hand deserves to be treated with caution if not suspicion. In my opinion the artless inclusion of the 72 angels in Harley MS 6483 merits no more than a footnote in the Lemegeton page. LuxInSeptentrionis (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Angels of the Shem Hamephorash table be kept or deleted?

A couple of editors want to remove the table of Angels of the Shem Hamephorash. Should the table be kept or deleted? Please keep comments here brief and place any long discussion in the section above, as has been requested by several editors. Skyerise (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. the table has been covered by a number of sources. Skyerise (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. In my opinion, 'polls' are not a valid means of reaching a consensus at Talk. Either the preceding discussion can be continued, or a new one started with a concise summary of the dispute. Clearly, there are strong opinions here, and it may not be possible to reach a resolution satisfactory to all. David notMD (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • That may be, but they are a legitimate means of determining consensus which can be formally closed. If you don't like how I did it, improve on it. This poll will run until it's robust enough to call for closure on it. Skyerise (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. The table of angels may be regarded as rubbish by modern mainline Judaism, and by rationalists. But if enough people once took it seriously, and wrote about it, it warrants a place in Wikipedia, just as Arianism does. Maproom (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The table of angels as such is not part of any Jewish tradition, but rather originated in one (the Tannaitic speculations around the name of God as a general background and the Kabbalah as direct source, see my comment in the discussion section above). The interpretation of the letter-combinations as the names of angels was elaborated by Christian thinkers such as Blaise de Vigenère (1523–1596) and Thomas Rudd (1583?–1656) according to one source now cited in the article, and perhaps already by Johann Reuchlin (1455–1522), Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa (1486–1535) and Petrus Galatinus (1460–1540) according to LuxInSeptentrionis here on the talk page above (we'd need a secondary source for that though). However, there's a whole tradition in Jewish intellectual history on the Shem ha-Mephorash that equates it with the tetragrammaton (the Four-Lettered Name), with a Twelve-Lettered Name, with a Forty-two Lettered Name, or with several other ways to construe the Seventy-two Lettered Name, all of which is largely absent from this article right now (for an overview, see here). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep – the table appears to be well sourced (if parts of it are not, that should be fixable); just needs to be described in appropriately accurate historic context, whatever that is. Doesn't need to be part of mainstream Judaism to be worth including. Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete As Apaugasma has correctly stated in his preceding comment right above "there's a whole tradition in Jewish intellectual history on the Shem ha-Mephorash that equates it with the tetragrammaton (the Four-Lettered Name), with a Twelve-Lettered Name, with a Forty-two Lettered Name, or with several other ways to construe the Seventy-two Lettered Name, all of which is largely absent from this article right now (for an overview, see here)." This article already links to the Christian Latin Kabbalah Ars Goetia article, and such a detailed table of Angels and Demons possibly somehow derived from the original Hebrew Kabbalah 72 names maybe would have a place there. But certainly not here. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • And the occultists call it the same thing, because it's the same topic. Skyerise (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Merge the table into Goetia, and delete it from this page as wildly undue as long as we don't have a relatively fleshed out article dealing with the first 1500 years of the concept's history in Jewish thought. When we have such an article, it may be reinstated, but without the 'Ruling angel' and 'Order' columns, which are not based on 17th-century goetia but rather on the 20th-century occultist writer Robert Ambelain. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I completely subscribe to every argument and suggested procedure detailed here. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    • New !vote: Keep, but revise; keep per the now proven significant coverage in reliable secondary sources; revise per what I have said here and elsewhere in this RfC about Ambelain, and especially per LuxInSeptentrionis below.
• Remove It's not entirely clear what parts of the table were "invented"/"discovered" by whom; and I am still yet to see any substantial secondary coverage of the list. The information that is in Rudd's Goetia could likely be in Wikisource or discussed in an article on the Goetia; if Mr. Skinner (or even Mr. Ambelain) has invented something not substantially discussed by anyone else it should not be anywhere in the project. If the sourcing is too minimal to let us distinguish between those, it is a sign the information is too obscure to include here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I think we can clearly say that anything relating to occultists or to demonology later borrowings from Kabbalah and Christian Cabbala belongs strictly to the Goetia area, not here. Particularly not in this article, the subject of which is akin to the Tetragrammaton in Judaism. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    • "Goetia" is not the umbrella category for occultism and Christian Cabbala. One column of this table relates specifically to Goetia, and could perhaps be moved there. The "angel" names relate to the broader theory of shem ha-mephorash common to Jewish (e.g. Sefer ha-Bahir), Christian and Hermetic writings, and should stay. Other columns again may be specific to Christian mysticism, but that in itself does not make them non-notable or undue. The sources cited are notable and influential, and that includes modern authors such as Skinner. Fuzzypeg★ 03:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @力: the table is based on a work by "Dr. Rudd", which is covered by Asprem 2012, pp. 32–38 (Asprem interestingly concludes that it was probably not written by Thomas Rudd but by some unknown late 17th-century author; also confirms the medieval Kabbalistic background on p. 33), while the background of late medieval and early modern angel magic in Jewish thought is covered by Véronèse 2012, pp. 59–62 (who on p. 60 also cites the creation of angel names by adding the adding suffix -el to Hebrew letter combinations). These are both very reliable sources, and cover the development of the concept from Roger Bacon's readings of the Liber semamphoras to the Christian Kabbalists of the 17th century. Roger Bacon is 13th century, so we're speaking about a tradition of at least 500 years here which used (Latinized and bastardized versios of) the term Shem ha-Mephorash as the centre of a system of angel magic even before the occultists of the 19th century entered upon the scene. The Rudd treatise is very illustrative of that tradition, and having a table on this is certainly instructive (if, as I argued above, the history of the concept in Jewish tradition –which is the actual primary topic here and is now obscured by the very much secondary angel stuff– has first gotten its due). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Maybe they're just not up to the challenge of writing that part of the article. Skyerise (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

      Nope, I am not up to this challenge (which is only just being thrown in by you now, in any case), yet. But I wouldn't spend any time and effort on it as long as the original Hebrew/Jewish high concept is all mixed up here with extraneous Latin and later vernacular low occultist and demonological inventions, which seems to be the stuff you're into. As long as these two very different concepts and elements are by mistake here combined and mixed in one with the other I wouldn't spend a minute more on this article. Once the stuff you seem to be interested in (judging by the way you popped in here out of the blue and then started rather frantically updating is moved out of here and into its own proper domain), I would defintely spend some time trying to improve the purified, remanining article. warshy ^(¥¥) 02:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

      It's not a "different concept" at all. It's a continuous evolution through Jewish Kabbalah, to Christian Cabala, and finally Hermetic Qabalah. These poeple you degrade as "occultists" are actually Hermetic Qabalists, mentioned in the lead paragraph, "describing a hidden name of God in Kabbalah (including Christian and Hermetic variants)". Based on your statement, I can only conclude you were never here to improve the article, only to gate-keep. Skyerise (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

      Well, I think I am up to the challenge of writing up the part on the history of the concept in Jewish history. I'm working on it right now, and will be able to post somewhere tonight or tomorrow. There will definitely still be some WP:DUE issues to resolve, but let's discuss those in another thread, not in this RfC. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC

      I am glad you are already up to it. In terms of being here to improve the article I do want to add a few observations that I hope may help you. 1) Please note that the Jewish Encyclopedia has a separate entry on Shem Hamephorash, but the main sources regarding the sujbect are really found there in the full article on the Tetragrammaton, as you have explained above. 2) I can tell you that I looked for it as I said I would many months ago above, but the more recent (1976 / 2006) Encyclopaedia Judaica does not have a separate entry on the concept of the Shem Hamephorash. There, instead, you (I) would have to try and cull all the needed material and sources for this article from the main articles there on YHWH and on the Tetragrammaton. Likewise, this article here would have to be improved with many other sources that are currently being used only on the Tetragrammaton article. Just some of my notes and observations on improving this article. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, but perhaps move some specialised info to other articles. These angels of the Shem ha-Mephorash are not part of mainstream Judaism, but neither are they limited to Goetic magic. As per citations in the article, they are part of the tradition of non-Jewish Kabbalah (Christian and Hermetic). I see no reason to limit this article specifically to mainstream Jewish conceptions of Shem ha-Mephorash, as long as it's clear what is mainstream Jewish and what is not. Non-Jewish Kabbalah may be viewed as inferior by some, but it has been a notable (and very rich) strand of European mystical and religious thought since the 12th century. Interpreting the Shem ha-Mephorash as angel names is an idea that remains current today, and is repeated in numerous contemporary books on spirituality and magic. Again, some may view such mysticism as inferior to traditional Jewish Kabbalah, but it remains notable: try searching google books for "shem hamephorash" or "shemhamephorash": even excluding the obvious self-published titles, books on magic dominate the results. As such, I don't see how it can be argued that this focus on magic is undue. It may rankle to see names of demons ascribed here, and these could perhaps be split out to the Goetia article. Perhaps there are other ways of making the table more (vertically) compact. But in general, it makes sense to keep the table here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzypeg (talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment the prose article is much improved now and I have no objection to any of those additions. It still makes more sense to me to have the table on List of demons in the Ars Goetia if it needs to be covered at all; the expanded article still doesn't explain why Ambelain's work is important enough to highlight in this fashion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I would not object if the column of demons were removed from the table, though I think the rest should stay. Skyerise (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I think that it is rather the column of demons that can stay, since just like the angels and the invocatory verses, the demons stem from the 17th-century Dr. Rudd work that is covered by Asprem 2012 (pp. 32–38), who can serve as the basis for a paragraph explaining the actual contents of the list. The part that is really problematic is the 'Ruling angel' and 'Order' columns, which are drawn from the 20th-century work of Ambelain: not only is it historically misleading to lump Dr. Rudd and Ambelain together, but more importantly, we have no context for Ambelain (what do these columns mean and what are they based on?), nor do we have a reliable secondary source that can elucidate that context for us. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Actually, the construction of the names was described by Johann Reuchlin in 1517, most likely obtained from his Jewish sources. I think they were listed in De Arte Cabalistica, but I no longer own a copy so am at the mercy of the Internet on that one. Rudd, de Vigenère, and Ambelain, etc. are the lineage of transmission, but I'm pretty sure the origin at least in Christian Hermetic Kabbalah was Reuchlin. I believe John Dee may also refer to these specific angelic names, though if so, I'm not sure if he sourced them from Reuchlin (likely) or an older Jewish source. Skyerise (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

        Well the table itself is based on Dr. Rudd, and what's important is that we have independent secondary sources covering Dr. Rudd. But of course the Christian Kabbalists too are covered by the sources given by LuxInSeptentrionis above (especially François Secret 1964, Les Kabbalistes chrétiens de la Renaissance looks promising), and the background in Jewish sources and in medieval angel magic is covered by Véronèse 2012 and by Asprem 2012. For Ambelain, however, we have no reliable sources, which as you know are a sine qua non on WP. Twentieth-century occultism is generally much less covered in scholarship than earlier periods, and WP cannot but reflect that reality. If we cannot find an independent secondary source on the angle info drawn from Ambelain, we shouldn't be including it, if only because we cannot even explain to our readers (without engaging in original research) what it means.

        If you think that the angel info in Ambelain also occurs in earlier sources (e.g., in the work of some early modern Kabbalist), then we should directly draw it from that work rather than from Ambelain, and explain it on the basis of a modern scholarly source covering that work. Using Ambelain as a secondary source on earlier sources, however, is out of the question, since as practicing Kabbalist he is very far from being independent. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

        You're misreading "independent". If we required sources to be independent of their own field, we wouldn't have an encyclopedia at all. Shall we eliminate all physicists from physics articles? The only independence Wikipedia requires is that a writer's works must be published by an independent publisher, not self-published. Kabbalists aren't unreliable sources about Kabbalah any more than Jews are unreliable sources about Judaism. To say otherwise is religious bigotry in either case. Skyerise (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

        In any case, the origin of the list of angelic names in Christian Kabbalah is Reuchlin, and thankfully his list is published in a critical bilingual edition, On the Art of the Kabbalah (1993, p. 273), published by the University of Nebraska. As for when and by whom the other columns (ruling angel, order, and verse) were added, you'll find many more sources by searching for "72-fold name" than for "Shem HaMephorash". Cheers! Skyerise (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

        No. It is true that, as you say, independent sources have editorial independence. But that's not the primary way in which independent sources are defined on WP, which is as follows: An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Ambelain had a vested interest in practical Kabbalah, just like Aleister Crowley had a vested interest in Thelema, and just like Anton LaVey had a vested interest in Satanism. These are all primary and non-independent sources with respect to their subjects, just like Pope Francis would be with respect to Christianity, and yes, like Menachem Mendel Schneerson would be with respect to Judaism. Physicists generally approach physics from a disinterested perspective because being disinterested is inherent to the scientific method. However, religious Jews writing from a believer's perspective do not generally approach Judaism from a disinterested perspective, because religious belief is inherently non-disinterested. We don't use Schneerson for Judaism, we don't use LaVey for Satanism, and we don't use Ambelain for Kabbalah, except as primary sources. This is not open for discussion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Be that as it may, WP:PRIMARYCARE states that "Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does." So a hypothetical primary source could be used for a table of names, but not for the theory of how the table was constructed. The real question here is: Who first applied the Celestial Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite to the 72-fold name? I haven't found an answer to this yet, but surely the answer isn't Ambelain. Skyerise (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, since it's well-sourced. Idealigic (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep it is well-sourced.Thelostone41 (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, but revise (for background see my long-winded comments in the section above). Add the three-letter divine names, a major omission from the table as it stands; retain the names of the seventy-two angels and the Biblical (not 'invocatory') verse, citing a more reliable source for the latter (i.e. Reuchlin, per the Goodman translation); remove the 'ruling angel' column as Ambelain's source is undetermined (at a guess he applied the angels listed in the scale of the number ten corresponding to the nine choirs from Agrippa's de Occulta Philosophia (book 2, chapter 13) to the seventy-two angels, but either way this seems to be a novel interpretation); remove the 'order' column as this could be addressed with a single sentence in the narrative part of the entry, referencing Athanasius Kircher's incorporation of the seventy-two angels into the Christian Celestial Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite; remove the 'demon ruled' column, this could be adequately addressed by a brief reference in the Lemegeton entry where the Goetia spirits are already listed because there is a simple one-to-one match between the two in Harley MS 6483 (the first spirit corresponds with the first angel, the second spirit with the second angel and so on; there's no complexity to this and it doesn't need spelling out in a table here); perhaps add the single-word divine attributes found in Giustiniani and later sources. LuxInSeptentrionis (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)