The Necronomicon A Oto Stolen Secret? Options

Imperial Arts.

The Simon Necronomicon is somewhat like a mutt. It's made up of alot of different aspects. One side is the marketing aspect. During the 70's there was a big surge in interest in all things lovecraftian. Well, if one were to write, compile, edit, whatever, a magickal work for publication, one would wish to raise as much interest in it as possible. And as far as magickal tomes go, the 'dread necronomicon' of lovecraft is about as notorious as it gets, (among the general public,). So calling it the Necronomicon is obviously a marketing ploy. And one which obviously generated sales. I mean, if Bowie has been a big more popular in the states at the time, the book very well could have been called THE RISE AND FALL OF ENKI AND THE GODS FROM SUMERIA.lol
Now, look at the fact that Simon calls himself the books editor. Well that means he very well could have (and most certainly did) alter the infamous Al-hazreds words. It's doubtful Alhazred, if based on a real person, would have named this book such. But Lovecraft did use that name because of his love of his obtuse words. Now comes the connection between Simon's book and Lovecraft.
Simon's book includes magick and Sumerian, Akkadian, Chaldean etc.. lore of ancient demons and dark 'gods'. So does lovecrafts. When he was creating his stories he obviously came across the extent volumes on Sumerian Mythology and realized just how effective those names and scenarios would be as horror. The Sumerian Asag, becomes Azathoth.
Asag in the Sumerian mythos was described as being 'so hideous a demon king that 'the fish would boil in the rivers'. Lovecraft, speaking of Azathoth in a short missive in his notes reads 'Azathoth-hideous name.'
Again, Lovecraft speaking of Azathoth; Outside the ordered universe is that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless demon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes
If you pick through the above passage, you can the similarities. Both are called demons. Both are referred to as being 'royalty' (king/sultan) and both use the imagery of bubbling or boiling.
When one delves into the matter it can be seen that Simon did not steal from Lovecraft to create a Sumerian Religion, but rather Lovecraft 'stole' from Sumerian religion to create his mythos. Simon just capitalized on the Lovecraft surge to sell more copies. I could present more on this, but I would like to present another subject first, in this post.

And that concerns the survival of Sumerian religious practice beyond the death of their civilization. I will use the Goddess Inanna and the practices which surrounded her as an example.
Inanna as the Sumerians called her, is the first known divinity associated with the planet Venus. This Sumerian goddess became identified with the Semitic goddesses Ishtar and later Astarte, Egyptian Isis, Greek Aphrodite, Etruscan Turan and the Roman Venus. Also, she was considered by the Sumerians to be 'the Holy Virgin', a title quite dichotomous with her role in things. For She is also a Goddess of sex. With that in mind consider the Virgin Mary. A woman called the Holy Virgin who at the same was known to have birthed many children, including a purported god, again, quite dichotimous. This is only the Goddess herself.
Consider the ramifications of a Goddess existing in so many cultures with so many masks. What it means is She has been remembered. And anything that endures for a minimum duration of time, inevitably influences all that follows it. A perfect example of an historical trend sequence.
A Goddess is discovered, her founders die out, their successors change her name and MODIFY their method of worship. Given say, 5000 years between the birth of Inanna worship in Sumeria to the veneration of the Virgin Mary in 150Ad, for example. Five thousand years and changing cultural mores bring about the magnification of her 'Virgin' aspect and do away with the Sex aspect. Therefore worship of her changes from ritual sex to the lighting of blessed white candles. And instead of Her sleeping with gods, she gives birth to one. But in our Faith, we strip away some of the modifications and go back to a more original method of worship combined with modern additions.
To do this you need a number of things. First of all, you need to examine what modifications occurred and how they interact with what is known of the original method. Second, you need to determine what, if any, of these modifications were beneficial. And lastly, you need to fill in the gaps in your knowledge and method with the best possible information and practices.
This is essentially the nature of Simon's Necronomicon and it's function. Are the sigils given for the Gods ancient sumerian? Highly doubtful . At best they are modern creations including Sumerian motifs known to be associated with that particular deity.
So, we wish to worship Inanna. Well, what do we know of her?
Inanna's name may originally have been Nin-anna "lady of the sky" (from Sumerian NIN "lady", AN "sky"), although the cuneiform sign for her name is not historically a ligature of the two. It sounds very close to "Nanna" the name of the Sumerian moon god. Inanna's name is also similar to that of the Hurrian and Hittite goddess Hannahanna (although the latter has no etymological connection, being derived from the Hittite word hannas "grandmother"). In some traditions Inanna was said to be a granddaughter of the creator goddess Nammu or Namma.
Also, n Sumerian art she was associated with lions — even then a symbol of power — and was frequently shown standing on the backs of two lionesses. This gives her iconographic similarity with the Anatolian Cybele. Her cuneiform ideogram was a hook-shaped twisted knot of reeds, symbol of divine authority, ancestor of the crozier later carried by Catholic bishops.
Next. Along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers were many shrines and temples dedicated to Inanna. The temple of Eanna, meaning "house of heaven" or "house of An" { in Uruk]was the greatest of these. The god of this fourth-millennium city was probably originally An. After its dedication to Inanna the temple seems to have housed priestess-prostitutes of the goddess. The high priestess would choose for her bed a young man who represented the shepherd Dumuzi, consort of Inanna, in a hieros gamos , celebrated during the annual Akitu (New Year) ceremony, at the Spring Equinox. In late Sumerian history (end of the third millennium) kings established their legitimacy by taking the place of Dumuzi in the temple for one night on the occasion of the New Year festival.
Now, from this we can garner a number of conclusions.
1. She's a moon goddess, as per her relation to Nanna.
2. By calling her 'Lady of the Sky' it denotes a fairly high station among the gods.
3. She was associated strongly with lions. ( Arthur Waite's Strength Tarot card?hmm)
4. Her inclusion alongside An (Anu) denotes a possible link to the progenitor God.
5. Dumuzi serving as her consort in the hieros gamos gives the male priest a strong possibility for a form of worship. This fact is reinforced by Later dynasty Sumerian kings practices. Much of these facts may be expounded upon by known, original Sumerian tablets describing the legends surrounding her activities.
Now one would need examine the altered qualities in later forms of Inanna, going one by one from earliest change to last known change and determine the validity and usefulness of said alterations. For the sake of space and my sore fingers I will skip this step.
However, I will dwell shortly on one of these occurences, because it does help in explaining our current method of ritual.
And that is the Victorian era.
When much of later nineteenth and early twentieth century magick was being formulated, it was done so from pre-existing sources and incorporated into a system of ritual. Take for instance, the LBRP.
This is a ceremonial act of purely occult nature. However, anyone can see the blatant use of Christian dogma. When, in two thousand years of Christianity did a say, catholic priest walk clockwise with a sword pronouncing god names and tracing pentagrams? They didn't. But their god was still successfully employed by a newly created ritual.
Such is what we have done.
To worship Inanna as she was originally known, we've taken what we know for sure about her, considered all the changes time has wrought and formulated something to work with her. Has the Necronomicon existed since the 8th century A.D? No. Was there a Mad Arab? Highly doubtful.
Have the Gods and 'demons' it deals with existed since the beginning of the Sumerian people? Yes.
Do we know EXACTLY how they were worshipped? No.
But we do have detailed information on methods of worship which EVOLVED from the original. So with reasonable deduction, some reverse engineering, a bit of research and a little creativity, we've found a way to replicate, not practice exactly, the worship and magick of the ancient Sumerians.
Our Gods and Goddesses never ceased to be worshipped, they were just called different things and worshipped differently, and the "necronomicon' is just another step in the evolution of their worship.
And one last quick note about Simon's use of the Mad Arab and lovecraftian overtones. A bit of good drama and grand guignol pschyopomp has never hurt a ritual!
Peace

This comment along with calling the video pathetic I took for contempt.

“I have "bothered" to use the Necronomicon's rituals.”

I think it would be hard to ban H.P. Lovecraft as the first time I heard about the Nec was through him. Who said he is banned?

This is said in response to "Eabatu" saying "if you had ever bothered to use the.." etc. and his comment to the effect that we cannot discuss Lovecraft in this thread, both of which are absurdities.

I maintain that the video does not do the Watcher rite justice. Perhaps "pathetic" is a bit harsh a criticism for someone reading over a piece of Wonderbread burning in a plant potter (what's that in the bag?), but this is the fight club. Let us see it done the way it's done!

I have no need of martyrdom especially for a text so questionable as to authenticity. Why in the nine hells would anyone worship a god they only know of in a text thats barely legitimate? That just sounds like a foolish teenager. At least choose from the gods you know to have existed. Even though theres really no need. Just the one god is the only one to save you. So to learn from the rest of the gods is great but to worship any other is foolish. Even the youngest fool knows that history repeats itself. Have you not seen what has happened to all those that worship idols and false gods? Sodom and Gamora, Egypt? Rome? The list goes on for miles. The past shows us the truth, the moment is to be lived and the future is not set in stone so make it what you wish by living in the moment. And in reality the REAL god wants no worship he only asks that we take care of our own.
Id rather you just say you worship satan he is above any ancient one or elder one. Actually they are more than likely an extension of him.

This post has been edited by Enochian: Dec 28 2006, 11:15 AM

Greetings

First, I don’t think the authenticity of the manuscript should even be discussed, as it clearly does not matter. The gods are real and the system evidently works. Who cares about the authenticity of the rituals? Imperial Arts, in your other posts on the Goetia you make it very clear that you are a traditionalist Ceremonial Magician, which is great…but, remember that there are also controversies considering the Goetia. Though it is reputably Solomon’s Magic synthesized in the Middle Ages, one is hard-pressed to find any evidence that it existed prior to the 17th century.

Occultists have a preoccupation with everything that is old and arcane; as a result we cease to see Magic as an evolving science, something which the ancients would have had no problem doing. Whether you speak to God through a burning bush, a dream, or a cell phone does not matter, what is important is that you spoke to God!

The point is that the hierarchy and cosmology presented in the Necronomicon is pretty much what you would expect to find in any Babylonian tablet. If this was a forgery created by Simon, he clearly did his research. In fact, the article Imperial posted mentions that he spent time in the University of Pennsylvania Museum (THE museum for Sumerian and Babylonian scholars!). Alternatively, maybe the Mad Arab did exist. In which case he likely did the same thing Simon is accused of doing; he pieced together a working cosmology from ancient Mesopotamian sources. Seraphim’s excellent post reminds us that Yemen was indeed a place of cultural diversity and that it would be possible for a learned individual to compile such a tome. There is also the existence of the Great Library of Alexandria which was renowned for its collection of Babylonian tablets many of which were transcribed and translated into Greek Papyri. In fact, historians of science now believe that much of the great findings of Greek mathematician and astronomers were translations of these Babylonian texts. Who knows how many other Babylonian texts were translated and how many of these remained in circulation well after the burning of the library (either c. AD 400 or c. AD700). The fact being that it would be just as possible to compile a Babylonian grimoire in the 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th century as it was in the 20th century.

Acid your point is taken regarding the divergent belief systems in existence throughout the Mesopotamian city-states, but is this really any different than what was occurring centuries later in Greece? Yet nobody has a problem when describing a Greek pantheon as a static hierarchy of gods. True, the Babylonian Religion scholars know today is a synthesis of the most prominent beliefs circulating at the time (those which were written down), but it is no more or less accurate because of this. After all, the Bible too was pieced together from various divergent sources well after the events in question took place and yet few believers doubt the authenticity of its faith.

With that said, I find it highly unlikely that the Necronomicon (as it is today) is a compilation of only Babylonian sources. In pre-Hellenistic antiquity magical texts read more like spell books (see the Leyden Papyrus for example), meaning that they have long lists of divine names and words used to charge ritual, they rarely if ever specify how the ritual is to be conducted or re-print the symbols that are to be used (sigils and seals). These aspects of ritual are part of the initiatory tradition; these are learned secrets kept within priest lineages that are transmitted orally. Of course, a little diligent research and you will “figure out” the symbols of power as they were often engraved in stone to charge the iconography and to empower temples and palaces. This requires access to archaeological materials and a scholarly approach.

The inclusion of symbols and seals in the text of the Necronomicon stands in stark contrast to every magical text (and fragments there of) that I have seen before the Hellenistic period…one might say that the outline of ritual practice and seals make the Necronomicon too detailed to be of purely Babylonian origin. Really, such inclusions do not become popular until the Illumination manuscripts of the Middle Ages.

I guess my point is that it is impossible to argue a static text. If the Mad Arab compiled a collection of Babylonian spells and conjurations (highly likely), he would have needed to have been a scholar in Babylonian archaeology to create the appropriate sigils and seals (highly unlikely). Consequently, Simon had a much greater access to Babylonian material (UPENN Museum) from which to create the seals…and of course he would have done this in the 1970’s when everyone was creating sigils as it was the height of Chaos Magick. In the end, we are all products of our time!

Magic is a process; magical texts evolve as more materials and knowledge become accessible. I think most of the Nec practitioners will agree that Simon’s Necronomicon is not the finite text, the practice will evolve as times change and a new Necronomicon will emerge…perhaps under a different name. Perhaps the story of the Mad Arab is to be taken more symbolically than literally; perhaps it was Simon’s intention to show Magic as a process of transmission: Babylonian tablets to Greek papyri to an English paperback. Whether or not you believe in the Mad Arab, this process of transmission undoubtedly happened. Along the way, the Babylonian myths and practices were strengthened into a working cosmology within the confines of the resources of each age. Consequently, a grimoire across time was created. If you want to practice “true ancient” magic go live in a cave somewhere, paint some pictures of yourself hunting animals on the walls, and then go hunt!

Moving on, Eabatu, you make a convincing argument regarding that numerical parallels between Aiwass, Thelma, and Ptah. Your connecting Ptah with Enki is logical from a hermetic stance, but I am weary of such cross-cultural syncretism. True they share much in common (a similar archetype), but each deity is dependant on the context of their cultural tradition. My big problem with this link is that Ptah makes his principle appearance in the Memphite cosmogony (the latest of the three major Egyptian cosmologies recorded in the 25th Dynasty); if he was a Mesopotamian deity carried over to Egypt, we would expect him much earlier in Egyptian history. Seraphim, in your last post (also immensely informative) you draw a similar trajectory stemming from Inanna, but you seem to be more careful in pointing out that there are aspects of the archetype that are carried over…not so much the deity herself. Isis and Inanna actually have much less in common than we are led to believe, yet they are both prototypes of the Virgin Mary. But this does not mean that Inanna=Isis=Virgin Mary. People worship the Virgin Mary for her purity and devotion to God, Isis for her Magic and healing, and Inanna as a goddess of fertility and strength. To take a deity out of cultural context dilutes their power. This form of syncretism is beneficial to religious scholars and hermeticists for classifying deities (in the name of simplicity) but is not entirely accurate. Anyway, I’m getting off topic.

Was Crowley an influence on Simon? You can bet your ass on that. Edunpanna’s post regarding the “demon Perdurabo” clearly articulates this. In fact, most of us would probably agree that our good friend Perdurabo is at the roots of all current day Magical systems. The Necronomicon in its present form could not have existed without Crowley. Chaos Magick could not have existed without Crowley. Garderinian witchcraft could not have existed without Crowley. The list goes on and on....

You might say that Crowley is to Modern Magic what Abraham is to Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, the patriarch – the trunk of the tree that supports the branches of different traditions. Now, was the Necronomicon Crowley’s secret? Hmm…

Whether you like him or not, Crowley de-mystified Magic and turned it into a working practice that anybody can use. Follow the steps and you will get results! In many ways he revived Magic as a science of cause and effect, a remarkable feat considering that since the Renaissance it had been relegated to the realm of superstition and the supernatural. This was his goal; he wanted to plant a seed for future generations so that we can unravel the myth of mundane existence. A myth that has been force-fed to the masses by religious institutions and centralized governments perpetually throughout human history. Through Crowley one comes to understand that it is All magic, and everything is myth, a truth which the people in control do not want us to know. Why? Well, because when individuals like us learn the truth: that magic is real, that symbols hold power, and that we can tap into and interact with forces greater than ourselves to pursue our Will, the myth of modern society unravels and those in control loose their source of power. Magic was the science of Kings and Priests and not of the common people for this very reason.

I see the Nec as a combination of Ceremonial Magick and Chaos Magick within a Babylonian working cosmology. In many ways one can compare the Necronomicon to Thelma, as both are traditions involving rituals and symbols compiled over recent ages that reference text and deities from archaic traditions (Babylon and Egypt). The deities themselves are much older than the rituals practiced to invoke them (the same is true with any Magical system), but this does not detract from their validity. So, is the Necronomicon Crowley’s secret?

Of course it is! As with Thelma, and other hermetic and magical orders, the Nec is a key through which its practitioners can manifest their Will. The end result is Crowley’s secret, the paths and traditions we choose to get there are inconsequential.

This post has been edited by Faustopheles: Dec 28 2006, 03:47 PM

Enochian, you are too funny! OK man, why the fuk are you even in here other than to start shit! I have never seen you post in the Necronomicon section. You seem like a repressed Christian that poses as a magician. Enough time has been wasted on you.......

Now to you Imperial Arts, I never said to ban Lovecraft--I was voicing an extreme frustration of Lovecraft's name being invoked each time a discussion on the SImon Necronomicon is discused. To any Priest of ENKI this is pointless and irrelevent to the purpose of this thread. Like Seraphim stated above--the name Necronomicon was used as a marketing ploy most likely. I have grown increasingly annoyed by the mention of Lovecraft in Necronomicon discusions as a whole. I almost want to plead w/ SImon to change the name of the book so this can be avoided in the future. The Necronomicon you care to discuss is out by SKOOB ESOTERICA and it is entirely based on Lovecraftian lore--it also has a companion edition The R'lyeh Text.

And about the video, well--sorry we dont play dress up as good as you CM out there. In my opinion the attire means nothing to the work. If you can do the magick it will get done! Day-Night, matters not! One can call the Watcher anytime they want. Sure certain rituals are best done at night, but the ones Ashnook was doing can be done in the day. About the new bowl--how ticky tack of you--what does that matter--you ever stop to consider that Ashnook might use that bowl often? It can get quite expensive to use a new bowl each time. Sorry if our methods arent as professional and prestine as your CM ways---I bow down to your exalted ways (barf!), I was hoping to get to the bottom of the origins of the Simon Necronomicon MS but the usual BS has, as usual, derailed the pathway to truth once again.......

No wonder many secrets fade into obscurity............

I might also add Faustopheles, quite an impressive post there! the back end of your post says alot about what modern magick really is and the importance of Crowley to it. W/o his input modern magick would still be a secret only held by Bishops and their kind as well as psychopaths of questionable character. You are absolutly correct in your assertion of the Nceronomicon being a work in progress at the present. Anyone who uses it finds they develop a system that suits them and only them, but is based on the ground work layed out in the Text itself. To me that is REAL magick--not the robotic mimicing of others work w/o adding anything of your own into it.

This post has been edited by Eabatu: Dec 28 2006, 04:27 PM

Great stuff faust. I like the end "the paths and traditions we choose to get there are inconsequential".

Is there a way in the Necronomicon to perferom the summoning of the 30 AEthyrs as Crowley did? I realize it would not be one step deal but is it possible? Or would it take more than the Necro to perform? I know off topic a bit but all your writing about crowley made me wonder if its possible to do with just the Necro?

DEATH TO EMO!!! yeah...

As long as it works still does it matter?

Weather or not the nec works is up to those who use it.
The question isn't if the necronomicon works it's if it's a stolen OTO secret.

My opinion - if its highly probably that some, possibly insane, Arabian dude made errors translating supposedly Summerian tablets found in the 8th century then the OTO is likely to have created errors as well. And even more likely if they used the translations of this alledged author of the Nec. In which case the odds of the *original* Summerian religion surviving to this age are very low. This would include any secrets contained within the original workings of the Summerian rituals. So I don't think Simon stole any OTO secrets and if he did he did so secretly - as in he didn't really reveal anything obvious.

Thank you Acid for getting this topic back where it belongs! Your theory isnt to bad actually. Like I said when I started this post --my idea was just that, an idea. But something still tells me there's more to this story still......like we are in the middle chapters right now.....the truth is elusive in these matters, thats for sure!

All you guys should read kenneth grant's outer gateways which cites the Simon nec numerous times. Alot of people consider him the rightful O.H.O. of O.T.O. That should give you guys a lot to think about.

Simon's book does have historical merit, but its based on what archeologists interpreted from ancient tablets or any other kind of litterature. A big issue with translating dead languages into one's that still are around is that nobody knows what the language sounds like or how it was spoken. Then we often translate such texts is by using some other language, like ancient Greek or Hebrew. An obvious example is the Rosetta stone, for which without, Egyptian hyroglyphs would just be puzzling pictures on the walls of Egyptian buildings. In the case of the Summerians we've found enough texts translated into say Hebrew that we can infer the meaning of genuine Summerian tablets, to a degree at least. Most of what we know about them has been gathered in the last century. The odds that some Arabian in the 8th century was even able to accurately translate tablets of a language that had been dead at that time for over 1000 years are slim to none.

However, on the flip side, some Summerian myths and beliefs were translated into other languages. Therefore it is possible that the mad Arab did not translate ancient tablets, but Greek (or some other language's) interpratations. It also makes sense that an Arab is the one who compiled the translated texts into one book because in the 8th century many ancient works had been destroyed by the zealous church. Hell the knowledge we have today on Plato and Homer were because people in the mid-east retained copies of the original works. So in this case it is possible that somebody from the mid-east compiled the surviving Summerian beliefs into one book and this was the original Necronomicon. This original could have survived the ages and eventually found its way into the hands of the OTO who intensely studied the book and its workings. Then Simon exposed their "secrets" by publishing it in his book in the 80's (I think).

Even if all of that is true, the Arab who compiled all of the texts into one book would have been using translations that were interpreted by people of different cultures. The chances that the Summerian religion would have survived without any errors are still very low.

But if the book works then it really doesn't matter if it is representative of ancient Summerian beliefs or not. The OTO may have realized the power of the book, plus its danger and wanted that kept secret. Which, Simon may have aquired the knowledge of the OTO and exposed it. He would have likely had to have been a member then.Then the question becomes what are the actual secrets?

The main problem I have is that the archeological knowledge of the Summerians was not kept secret, at least not on the 1980's. The odds that Simon got his knowledge from the archeology, not the OTO, are more likely. Thus Simon would not have stolen anything, that anybody else could have also learned.

Acid, Im convinced of the Babylonian origins of the Necronomicon. That is based on the place MARDUK has in the mythos contained w/i there. And everyone (on this thread) knows MARDUK was THE GOD of Babylon. Plus a few of the spells in the Maklu text I have found in CHaldean spell books---such as the Conjuration of the 7 liers in wait. I have seen that same exact conjuration in a CHaldean book written in the 1800's by a frenchman named Francois Lenormant.The point of that example is this, I really dont think the material contained w/i the Necro is pure Sumerian at all due to the sketchy way history is preserved and traditions are usually preserved as well. But the Babylonian angle seems to be more likely and feasible if u ask me. Aslo the use of ISHTAR and SHAMMASH makes me think Babylonian as well. I may have to go through the text now to find all the Babylonian examples contained w/i the text.

But ur point is taken Acid......it is not a Sumerian tome--influenced by Sumeria, but not Sumerian--much closer to Babylonian.

Either way it is in the same current according to Grant. Turn to page 85 in Outer Gateways

After all these factors have been considered, is it too outlandish to suggest that the real bloodline that penetrates the planet via Orders such as the Prieure de Sion and the Ordo Templi Orientis issues, not from any human dynasty, but from the Typhonian Current emanating from The Great Bear?

Hmmm... sounds exactly like that new book that simon just put out.

Simon's book does have historical merit, but its based on what archeologists interpreted from ancient tablets or any other kind of litterature. A big issue with translating dead languages into one's that still are around is that nobody knows what the language sounds like or how it was spoken. Then we often translate such texts is by using some other language, like ancient Greek or Hebrew. An obvious example is the Rosetta stone, for which without, Egyptian hyroglyphs would just be puzzling pictures on the walls of Egyptian buildings. In the case of the Summerians we've found enough texts translated into say Hebrew that we can infer the meaning of genuine Summerian tablets, to a degree at least. Most of what we know about them has been gathered in the last century. The odds that some Arabian in the 8th century was even able to accurately translate tablets of a language that had been dead at that time for over 1000 years are slim to none.

However, on the flip side, some Summerian myths and beliefs were translated into other languages. Therefore it is possible that the mad Arab did not translate ancient tablets, but Greek (or some other language's) interpratations. It also makes sense that an Arab is the one who compiled the translated texts into one book because in the 8th century many ancient works had been destroyed by the zealous church. Hell the knowledge we have today on Plato and Homer were because people in the mid-east retained copies of the original works. So in this case it is possible that somebody from the mid-east compiled the surviving Summerian beliefs into one book and this was the original Necronomicon. This original could have survived the ages and eventually found its way into the hands of the OTO who intensely studied the book and its workings. Then Simon exposed their "secrets" by publishing it in his book in the 80's (I think).

Even if all of that is true, the Arab who compiled all of the texts into one book would have been using translations that were interpreted by people of different cultures. The chances that the Summerian religion would have survived without any errors are still very low.

But if the book works then it really doesn't matter if it is representative of ancient Summerian beliefs or not. The OTO may have realized the power of the book, plus its danger and wanted that kept secret. Which, Simon may have aquired the knowledge of the OTO and exposed it. He would have likely had to have been a member then.Then the question becomes what are the actual secrets?

The main problem I have is that the archeological knowledge of the Summerians was not kept secret, at least not on the 1980's. The odds that Simon got his knowledge from the archeology, not the OTO, are more likely. Thus Simon would not have stolen anything, that anybody else could have also learned.

Maybe not a secret, but a ploy to get the Typhonian Current out.

This post has been edited by distillate: Jan 4 2007, 11:54 PM