>the oddity of Merkabah mystics using Greek barbarous names, and
>'Hellenistic' conjurers prefering words that at least sounded Jewish
>is an anachronism, especially given certain theories about the origin
Not for Kabbalah itself, since that's Medieval, rather than ancient -- at
least as I think of antiquity. As for the old stuff, there was a lot of
cross-pollination between pre-Christian "gnosticism" and the older
Hekhaloth mysticism. I'd think that body of literature to be more a matter
of theme snatching and word grabbing by contemporaries than anachronism.
If you really want to go old, go Babalonian and Egyptian for the roots.
>Doubtless the explanation involves subtleties, due to
>prolonged contact etc. but the appearance of Moses as magical hero in
>the Headless rite appears alongside an account of Creation straight
I think you are talking 6th century e.v. with the "headless/bornless" rite.
It looks Greco-Egyptian Hermetic in a lot of ways. Lyden Papyrus - like.
>This 'anachronism' has been raising eyebrows in academia
>for some time, but no odds.
Some eyebrow raising is just wishful thinking about male-pattern baldness.
In other words, more pose than profound.
>You take what is
>> around you, stick a label on it that seems right at the time and go on with
>yet getting on with life doesn't evade complications forever, maybe
>only passes the buck. ;-)
That's what bucks are for, ever since those little talesmanic blood clots
were cast in metal.
>> The longer a bolix has been up, the more folks think it's supposed to be
>> that way.
>;-) believe that fact made my acquaintance before, an error that hangs
>around long enough becomes a tradition. Then again, most good
>traditions involve alternative readings etc. ;-)
Old magick to create money is certainly a case in point.
>Bill > Regarding conversion of the Pope -- do you suppose Achad was a
>> reincarnation of Abulafia?
>LOL - y'know, the same idea occured to me. As holy fools go they're
>quite a pair. Some major differences in approach though, Achads idea
>of gematria is similar to modern (mis)conceptions. However both
>experienced visionary effects and other results of the 'literal'
>methods, the difference being that Abulafia evolved effective
>techniques of using 'literal' methods that way, which would be equally
>appplicable with modern systems, if known. Some are still knocking
>around, in unsuspected guises.
Also, Abulafia did his own innovation while Achad tended to publish the
work of his confreres in his books. Achad's actual innovations, the
inverted Tree and the Binobligate Obligations, gibber for themselves.
>> Several holy books, actually. Then too, there are over 100 tables in the
>> Dee Enochiana set.
>yep, the sense intended was as the Bible is both a book and several
>books. And that whether or not Enochian is *like* Kabbalah, it is
>certainly like Dees idea of a Universal Cabala.
I see some involvement of cabalistic elements, but not a preponderance of
them in the Enochiana.
>> -- which reminds me, I need to ask UCBerkeley if it's ok to put up a copy
>> of the 1st edition of the Monad on my website ....
>oh yeah Bill, hows the website? ;-)
Coming along. I boosted the available space to 10 gigs, looking to the
future. There's a bit more than 3 gigs of material there now, but over
half of that is 16th century manuscript scans in a private area --
hopefully to be made public if I can get clearances later this year. The
17th century stuff, except for Causabon, is publically on line, as
announced earlier in the posts here. I'm planning to work up another
volume of Ingoldsby and some other things, as well as more of my own texts.
I might have additional PD Crowley later this year. Hit rate isn't bad
for the nature of the stuff, about 10,000 page reads a good month.
>> Who knows? The association of number and letter in those two languages
>> apparently happened so long ago that there is no evidence that they were
>> ever separate -- at least for the final styles of those alphabets.
>uh, sorry mate, not true, the first evidence for the use of either
>alphabet as decimal numbers is on coins. The Jewish use (a century
>after the Hellenistic Greek) very plausibly a nationalistic reaction
>after a long period of Hellenistic influence.
To fragmentary to say, one way or the other, if the numbers and letters
started like that or had a long life before. At one time the scholars
thought the Masorets invented vowel pointing, but a MS turned up with some
pointing of Hebrew text centuries earlier. I have an allergy to equating
earliest known with origins.
>My own view is that 'Holy' exegesis (as opposed to literary criticism
>etc.) depends very largely on the internal elements of the text.
Historically, exegesis probably led to the foundation of literary criticism.
Weaseling out of inconvenient regulations has long been a driving force
toward creative, intellectual approaches to reading.
>Explaining the riddle by the riddle virtually defines exegesis. AL
>says the Order & Value is to be obtained, and that it is unknown to
>Crowley, I see no evidence that Crowey was unacquainted with the
>conventional order of the English alphabet, therefore that isn''t
Crowley was a genius. Einstein sometimes forgot to tie his shoe laces.
I don't see necessity in that argument.
>It is an exegete's logic, rather than a historian's, but
>(IMO) that is the hat for the job.
Well, Liber AL was actually written as sacred literature, unlike the texts
in the Bible. Perhaps the usual rules don't entirely apply?
>However, it may well be *an* order, odd numbered permutations of ABC
>all seem to be, and 1 is an odd number ;-)
1 isn't as odd as zero. If Crowley could bolix up the start number of the
Thelemic dating system, why not the order and value of the alphabet? For
that matter, Crowley had the layman's illusion that "1" is a prime number....
>> Thelemic Quibbing is certainly natural. :-)
>yes, thing is, a few times round the block, and a few large packages
>from 'Prophets of AL' with different solutions, you start to notice
>that whatever happens to them follows certain predictable patterns
>(give or take the odd monomaniac). Eventually you might ask yourself,
>'are they getting *something* right, that the rest of the revival has
>so far missed?'
I think the movement is more leftist than rightist.
>Anyhow, good talking with you, and good to hear about your website;
>proof there is still some interest in Magic, Qabalah and Alchemy among
>Thelemites, I'd begun to wonder.
Don't miss the Ingoldsby, especially "A Lay of St. Dunstan". ;-)