Talk:The Book of the Law
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Book of the Law article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days  |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 8, 2007, April 8, 2008, April 8, 2009, April 8, 2010, April 8, 2011, and April 8, 2013. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
| |||||||||
inactive . |
 | Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Interpretation via English Qaballa
In the 'Interpretation' section are 3 subsections: Via Hermetic Qabalah, Via Prophecy, and Via English Qaballa. The first two are methods that Crowley used to interpret the Book; the last one is a method not used by Crowley but by English occultists starting in the 1970s. I question why English Qaballa is given this status, when it is merely one of many attempts at 'interpretation' using a version of English gematria and qabalah. The root idea behind these interpretations is the fulfillment of verse 2:55 which states: "Thou shalt obtain the order & value of the English Alphabet; thou shalt find new symbols to attribute them unto."
I suggest a change to this subsection, making it about Crowley's own attempts at fulfilling verse 2:55 using English gematria (via Liber Trigrammaton, as he noted in both his Old and New Comment in The Equinox), with a simple mention of English Qaballa and English Qabalah as attempts made by later researchers, with a redirect to their already existing wikipedia pages. Catalyst418 (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- @primary sources. Book reception sections should include all notable views, not just those of its author. This is an article about a book, not about Crowley's interpretation or failure to interpret that book. Skyerise (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)]
- Yes, I understand that the article is about the book and not about Crowley per se, but given that the first 2 subsections are about his own interpretations, it seems odd that the only other approach mentioned is the English Qaballa, which is only one of many attempts at exegesis via English, (while ignoring what Crowley had to say on the subject). I am not advocating that only Crowley's views on the book matter, but that later attempts should be contextualized in the light of Crowley's initial efforts in the same direction. In that regard, it would be more neutral to make the subsection about exegesis via English in general, and not about E.Q. specifically. Catalyst418 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- @]
- Yes, I understand that the article is about the book and not about Crowley per se, but given that the first 2 subsections are about his own interpretations, it seems odd that the only other approach mentioned is the English Qaballa, which is only one of many attempts at exegesis via English, (while ignoring what Crowley had to say on the subject). I am not advocating that only Crowley's views on the book matter, but that later attempts should be contextualized in the light of Crowley's initial efforts in the same direction. In that regard, it would be more neutral to make the subsection about exegesis via English in general, and not about E.Q. specifically. Catalyst418 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Latin pronunciation
I notice the Latin pronunciation given is one where the "v" is pronounced "w". British Latin users of Crowley's generation would not have done this, and just pronounced it as an English "v" sound. 2A00:23EE:17A8:58FF:C555:D2CC:210C:EABD (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- It was added here by User:Everything Is Numbers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)