Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: John_bilodeau@hotmail.com (John B) Newsgroups: alt.magick Subject: Re: A Clavicula Salomonis Question Date: 1 Jun 2003 06:57:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 75 Message-ID: References: <5944dd93.0305292357.7694c7a4@posting.google.com> <5944dd93.0305312134.2eab856f@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.68.227.193 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1054475873 10480 127.0.0.1 (1 Jun 2003 13:57:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Jun 2003 13:57:53 GMT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick:347536 rb1_622@msn.com (rb1_622) wrote in message news:<5944dd93.0305312134.2eab856f@posting.google.com>... > I am writing of the Greater Keys, not the Goetic works. From what I > understand the Sloane manuscripts in the British Museum are a > translation of French from Latin documents that were translated from > an ancient Hebrew manuscript. Why would the writings be attributed to > a Muslim mystic if they were written in Hebrew? > > True, the Sloane documents are not the writings of Solomon, obviously, > just like the King James Version published in 1611 is not the writings > of the Apostles. They are also translations from Latin documents > which themselves were translations from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, > which may or may not have been accurately recorded from their original > oral traditions. > > Despite all these filtered translations is the message of the text not > attributed to the King Solomon the son of David? I am sure I have > read that it is and have even read that he performed these operations > in the Temple. Of course that would be pure speculation, although > certainly a logical assumption. > > My question really is why am I only finding these documents through > occult publishers and booksellers and not through traditional > religious or historic institutions even as reference points given the > historical nature of these writings and their very existence in the > British Museum? Newly published Bibles often contain photographs of > Babylonian and Assyrian artifacts. Why no mention of these writings? > Do modern Christian scholars consider these writings as something that > would tarnish their tradition? Or do they just question their > validity? > > rb1 Hi again, It's hard to be sure about the reasons why modern Christian scholars would ignore these texts but I can take a stab at it, and suggest that they aren't all that relevant to Christianity. Of the many different forms Christianity has taken (apart from theosophical esoteric Christianity and Christian Masonry) these texts represent a dark period in the history of Christianity. Medieval necromancy is not high on the list of topics for most Christian scholarship. From the protestant viewpoint, there are texts, like Fraser's "Golden Bough", which clearly relegate magic to the primitive and ignorant. From a Catholic point of view the practice of ceremonial magic represents a perversion of the sacramental power bestowed on clerics by God. These are simplifications, but in general, even in our secular culture most people who deal with demons are protrayed as fools, who dissipate and ultimately destroy themselves in a quest for illegitimate power over others. This quest is most often depicted as arising from fundamental weaknesses within the person, than any strength of character or knowledge of the sacred. Because of the cosmic dualism latent in most forms of Christianity, the desire to have power over the material world is seen as a fundamentally non-religious desire, a delusional and potentially harmful need. Most forms of Christian mysticism take a different path; either rejecting the physical altogether (dark night of the soul type of thing) or perceiving in material experience the operations of divine providence (thus eliminating the possibility of effective magical manipulation of matter). The Keys of Solomon do not address any typical christian goals or values, and are seen ( I would imagine) as artifacts of a degenerate stage of Christian development, a pre-reformation relic of the corrupt, materialistic medieval clergy. If I had to guess, that's what I'd suspect lies behind the modern Christian scholar's avoidance of these texts. Luckily within the modern magickal community, it seems these texts have found a place and a voice, and I can't see any reason why they should be shackled to the world-view from which they arose. Especially since Christians themselves are unlikely to place any value on them. JB