Review - The Origin of Satan by Elain Pagels
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"To a Qabalist, the name is the reality. "Satan" is Shin Teth Nun - Cosmic Fire, the solar-lion-serpent force, and the death-transformation energy which, at root, is the fundamental sexual force."
So, does that mean the authors of the Old Testament and New Testament Qabalists?
Or, regardless, the Qabalah provides the answers?
Or, STN, really isn't a Qabalah thing so much as a Hebrew language thing?
I did meditate on those keys as you suggested, Jim, and I think all of this is part of the process of me trying to cut through some of the ideas. I've been having dreams about Satan quite consistently and they are not frightening in the least; more like revelatory. I sometimes awake thinking "I get it" only to have the substance of my dreams evaporate from my memory before I can get the notebook.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"To a Qabalist, the name is the reality. "Satan" is Shin Teth Nun - Cosmic Fire, the solar-lion-serpent force, and the death-transformation energy which, at root, is the fundamental sexual force."So, does that mean the authors of the Old Testament and New Testament Qabalists?"
Yes. Of course. They were the earliest known, and set the pattern of everything else.
"Or, regardless, the Qabalah provides the answers?"
I suppose that depends on the question, eh?
"Or, STN, really isn't a Qabalah thing so much as a Hebrew language thing?"
There isn't any difference. Before the 19th Century, Hebrew was never spoken as a conversational language. It existed only for scriptural purposes. Every key word (certainly every name) in the Hebrew scriptures is a contrived formula.
-
That's what I had thought, but someone on the forums earlier stated that they didn't believe the scribes were Qabalists. And, of course, "proof" of the Qabalah only goes back so far.
I wonder how this language understanding was lost.
I have seriously got to become a good Qabalist and get me a Hebrew OT.
It seems that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not Qabalists. Or else, they were just liars with an strange agenda.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"That's what I had thought, but someone on the forums earlier stated that they didn't believe the scribes were Qabalists. And, of course, "proof" of the Qabalah only goes back so far."
Yes, only to Genesis I where the Creation story identifies 22 distinctive Divine Ideas grouped in exactly the structure of the Hebrew alphabet and, in most cases, giving the same attributions and characteristics to them that we give to the 22 Hebrew letters in the same structure...
...and all composed while, uh, writing in Hebrew.
"I wonder how this language understanding was lost."
It wasn't intended to be generally known. And, it wasn't lost.
"I have seriously got to become a good Qabalist and get me a Hebrew OT."
Not sure how you can look into this stuff without one
Get the freeware e-Sword from www.e-sword.ne - download all the Bibles you want, being sure to get at least the KJV, the KLJV with Strongs integrated, the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT.
"It seems that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not Qabalists. Or else, they were just liars with an strange agenda."
Of course they were Qabalists. And of course they had agendas. Whether strange or liars I don't really have an opinion on at the moment.
But the important thing to understand is that the esoteric side of religion is never intended to be known to the general public. It is preserved for the initiated few (who are usually the only ones who can understand it anyway) and a VERY different spin on the same content is intentionally provided to the general masses. Partly this has been a political power-grab at times, partly it has been to keep the priests from getting lynched, and mostly it's because the exoteric version is all that the masses would understand anyway. Truth is at odds with mass-mind - at least, that's been the way through most of history and it probably would be arrogant or simply deluded to think things had changed all that much since.
-
Redd, 93,
" It seems that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not Qabalists. Or else, they were just liars with an strange agenda. "
I'd say they were Qabalists - John, at least. But what's a 'strange agenda' ? To me, that sounds like 'ideas I don't like.'
Qabalah has no fixed orthodoxy beyond a set of agreed-on general principles (the basic Tree of Life being the most consistent..?) , and people are constantly coming out with off-centre notions, like that set of seven Trees you found. Such things are very useful to some people, and not at all to others.
Christianity, in its various major forms, took (I believe) a set of Qabalistic teachings, and from them formed orthodoxies, including doctrines on the literal existence of Satan, the Crucifixion, Judgement Day, Hell, et al. Qabalists are always tracing the truths that underlie or interpenetrate such orthodoxies. Qabalistic descriptions vary a lot, as a result, and that's what forces each of us to find our own understanding - which is a quite different process to determining our own dogmas.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Redd Fezz said
"That's what I had thought, but someone on the forums earlier stated that they didn't believe the scribes were Qabalists. And, of course, "proof" of the Qabalah only goes back so far."
I said that.
@sasha said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"I want to understand the Qabalist interpretation of the Bible."With great uncertainty...
I thought The Bible, both Old and New Testaments - but at least the Old, came out well before Qabalah.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by Qabalah. The classic Qabalistic, excuse me... Kabbalistic texts didn't appear until at least 1000 AD.
I can easily see that the writers of the Bible used gematria deliberately in their writing. According to Gershom Scholem's book on the history of Kabbalah, Jews probably learned Gematria from Babylonians during the captivity. But it seems that this use of gematria long predates Qabalah, perhaps by 1500 years."
-
@Edward Mason said
"Redd, 93,
" It seems that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not Qabalists. Or else, they were just liars with an strange agenda. "
I'd say they were Qabalists - John, at least. But what's a 'strange agenda' ? To me, that sounds like 'ideas I don't like.' "
No, if they were Qabalists and knew the true understanding of Satan, then these dolts were the ones who turned it around to mean something evil by accusing everyone NOT like them to be Satanic. True, I 'don't like' the ideas behind this strange agenda, but that does not mean it isn't strange to finger a group of people based on facts you know to be false.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"That's what I had thought, but someone on the forums earlier stated that they didn't believe the scribes were Qabalists. And, of course, "proof" of the Qabalah only goes back so far."Yes, only to Genesis I"
Well, that's pretty far! I had "proof" in quotes because I thought it was supposedly traced back only to the Sephir Yetzirah or something, but not being an expert Qabalist never took this as fact. (Or is SY older than Genesis, anyway?)
-
RF, 93,
" No, if they were Qabalists and knew the true understanding of Satan, then these dolts were the ones who turned it around to mean something evil by accusing everyone NOT like them to be Satanic. True, I 'don't like' the ideas behind this strange agenda, but that does not mean it isn't strange to finger a group of people based on facts you know to be false."
You seem upset over this topic. The nature and function of Satan appears very important to you - okay, that's acknowledged. But I have the impression you are going to remain frustrated until someone defines the 'true' Satan for you.
That's your job, though. Satan to me is not significant. I think it's a huge psychological misunderstanding, though properly understood it would point to the Redemer principle. Light comes down into the realm of mind, and the mind freaks out and throws out paranoia and confusion in response to all that incoming energy. We then spend a few lifetimes correcting that mistake, realise what we thought was 'evil' is just us over-reacting to Light, and on we go.
A key aspect of Satan in religion is that he/it is projected onto everyone in sight, and the versions of the gospels we now have include that notion. But that doesn't, in my mind, rule out an intended Qabalistic approach. For just one example, Matthew 1, 17 observes:
"
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."Now go to Revelations - you'll find references to 42 (3x14) all through it. The number was esoterically important to Matthew, whoever he or they really was/were. Exempt Adept Qabalists? Maybe they weren't, but they were aspirants to Qabalistic truth, like you and like me.
"if they were Qabalists and knew the true understanding of Satan"
Here's where you and I differ. I think a practicing Qabalist is constantly UN-knowing things he/she knew yesterday. We can definitively, finally, scholastically, empirically, Qabalistically, theologically and superlatively get to the 'truth' about Satan two or three posts from now. But if we really are Qabalists, our 'truth' won't hold up next year, or the year after that. Da'ath (knowledge) has a dodgy reputation for a good reason.
Religion is very Da'ath-ish. It's there because there's a need for it, and the Qabalists keep on doing their thing, too.93 93/93,
Edward
-
Thanks, Edward. I'm not upset, but I can see how I might be coming across that way. Look at my signature. Does that seem "upset"?
Your last post was very insightful. This thread has cleared up my confusion considerably, as I'd hoped it would. I have enought material now to work through Satan on my own time.
-
Sepher Yetzirah is much newer than Genesis.
Here's the quickie outline of what I regard as the oldest overtly Qabalistic formulation that resembles Qabalah as we know it today. (And yes, you're right, the name Kabbalah is only a little over a millennium old - that doesn't mean there wasn't Kabbalah, just that they called it something else.)
In Genesis I, "Elohim" appears 32 times. Here is the breakdown:
"Elohim said" - 10
(By tradition, this counts Gen. I:1 even though it isn't literally written that way.)
"Elohim made" - 3 times
"Elohim saw" - 7 times
"Elohim" (other) - 12 timesThe 10 instances corresponding to the 10 Sephiroth would be:
- In the Beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth.
- Elohim said, Let there be light...
- Elohim said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters...
- Elohim said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place...
- Elohim said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind...
- Elohim said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
- Elohim said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
- Elohim said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind...
- ELohim said, Let us make ADM (=45) in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion &c....
- Elohim said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed...
Not bad, eh?
For the three Mother letters:
A - Elohim made the firmament...
M - Elohim made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: and made the stars also.
Sh - Elohim made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind...These don't line up as well, and aren't as obvious. There may be a different order. There are, nonetheless, three of the same form.
For the seven Double letters we also don't get anything overly striking, since, though the first one (Beyth?) is, "Elohim saw the light, that it was good," all the others are simply, "Elohim saw that it was good" (ALHIM KI-TVB). No real differentiation. However, the last, corresponding to Tav, was specifically, "Elohim saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."
With the 12 Simple letters, things get very intriguing:
H - The Spirit of Elohim (RVCh ALHIM) moved upon (or hovered above) the face of the waters
V - Elohim divided the light from the darkness. [I'd expect joining rather than severing, but it isn't bad.]
Z - Elohim called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.
Ch - Elohim called the firmament Heaven (HShMYM).
T - Elohim called the dry land Earth...
Y - Elohim set them [Sun, Moon, stars] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth
L - Elohim created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind...
N - God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth [!!!]
S - Elohim created Adam in his image
O - In the image of Elohim created he him...
Tz - Elohim blessed them, and...
Q - ...Elohim said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.There are some very interesting items in these lines.
-
Edward said,
"You seem upset over this topic. The nature and function of Satan appears very important to you - okay, that's acknowledged. But I have the impression you are going to remain frustrated until someone defines the 'true' Satan for you.
That's your job, though. "
Another well written and thought out response. Yes, it is his job, and you are all helping him and others a lot by engaging in this.
Thank you, Edward Mason.
By the way, JAE,
brilliant posting on Elohim, the letters, etc.
No more Black Pearl?
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
xpost to Jim:
I find the 10 Elohim creation statements interesting, obviously in relation to the sephiroth (er, right?), but I don't understand how the double and single letters correspond to the statements you have attributed to them.
An additional thought: a skeptic would likely say that the Qabalah was based around these scriptures after the fact, so "of course it fits!" but, I have a feeling what you are saying is that when you really examine it, you can see it would be basically impossible to make all such correspondences fit so perfectly in a "retrofit" fashion, right? Even with my limited knowledge of Qabalah, I have been blown away by how "coincidental" it is, so I presume this is what you're saying.
-
@Chris Hanlon said
"No more Black Pearl?"
I put Black Pearl on indefinite hiatus after Vol. II, No. 1 when lack of necessary time available to produce it would have compromised the quality severely. I wasn't willing to do it slipshod, so I stopped doing it.
Anything worth doing is worth doing well - or shutting down if you can't!
-
Just a quick note to say I finished the second half of this book last night. Based on what everyone has said on this thread and the way Pagels finishes up the book, including her conclusion, Jim was 100% right (no surprise) that this book will help unravel any confusion about Satan one might have.
I previously confused the "concluding statements" I read in Pagels' other book "Adam, Eve & The Serpent" with the concluding remarks of this book, "The Origin of Satan," since I read them both over pretty well in the store before I purchased this book. I was incorrect, therefore, in my previous statement that Pagels claims to be inconclusive-- on the contrary, her conclusion is definite and brilliant. This entire book was so well put together, leading the reader from idea to idea along the evolutionary timeline of Satan and religion, anyone with Christian worries or Satanic fears can not help but be completely changed after having read it.
Perhaps, rather than being worried about where the idea of "savior Satan" comes from, I should have been more concerned about where the idea of "bad dude Satan" comes from. The first half of Pagels' book created a strong desire in me to read the books of the canonical Bible she discusses in order that I might see the shifting sands, contradiction and manipulation first hand. But, that desire was quickly replaced by an even greater desire: to whip out my Nag Hammadi library and read up on the "heretical" gnostic Christian scriptures she discusses in the second half of her book. The final chapter seems to point to a very Thelemic attitude and the ideas of Christ and Satan are not so opposed as I thought, afterall.
Also convenient and interesting: this morning, as I continued to read "The Law Is For All," I notice things discussed that I only now understand thanks to having been recently educated by Pagels' "The Origin of Satan." For instance, when Crowley mentioned Origen, I actually knew what he was referring to. And this understanding greatly clarified the entire passage.
-
Trés cool!
