Skinner J.R. - No Error: Difference between revisions

  | origin = English: J.R.S., ''No Error''

  | has text = yes

  | publications = [[Lucifer/Vol2|''Lucifer'', vol. 2]], no. 12, August 1888, pp. 492-495

  | read links = [[Lucifer/Vol2/Text|Electronic journal edition in Teopedia]]

  | download links = [https://opusmagnum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/lucifer_v2.pdf Original volume (PDF)]

}}

{{Style P-Quote|1=The paper of “Euphrates” finds me in the country without books of reference. The reason of the novel translation of the words “eli, eli, lama sabachthani” is as follows: – The record of the New Testament must stand as its own original authority, for it has no other authentic source. We are bound, therefore, to

take, accept, and follow, its own statements for what they appear. A Greek sentence, lettering Hebrew words, must be rendered into the Hebrew agreeably to the equivalents of the letters in the Greek text. For instance, and in this case, there are two words in the Hebrew square letter, of the same sound but of differing letters and meanings. One is the Chaldee שבק, and the other is the Hebrew שבח. The first is, ''anglicé,'' “''shâbāk,''” meaning ''to forsake'', and the other is ''shâbāch,'' meaning ''to glorify.'' These words are the ones supposed to be substituted for the word used in the Psalm, ''azabthani,'' the pure word for “''forsaken me.''” If in the Greek text, which is the ''only'' guide and authority we have, the word is found as ''σαβαχ,'' it cannot properly be rendered otherwise in the Hebrew, or square letter, than by שבח, or, ''anglicé, shâbāch.'' The real word of the Greek text is ''σαβαχθανι,'' or in proper conversion שבחתני or ''shâbāchthani,'' which does mean “''glorify me,''” and nothing else. Any change from this must and can be only by perversion, and by way of ''correction'' of the text of the New Testament. As used in the climacteric sentence of the whole symbolic fabricated drama, it was taken from the Mysteries, and never had any reality whatever. The matter has been referred to very learned Jews, and surprise has been expressed that in such a manifest difference between the indicated word and the correction adopted, ''no comment'' should exist of the fact of discrepancy, probably because it was thought best to slur, rather than lay the symbolic jugglery bare to the unthinking, ignorant herd.

Difficulties arising from some fatal obstacle to the conversion of a fixed and necessary symbolic real reading, and some plausible popular rendering to cover the symbolism, are not infrequent either in the Hebrew or Greek. Such an one is in the Hebrew sentence descriptive of the first child born into the world, wherein the child is said to be Jehovah himself, and where the vulgar are thrown off by the interposition of the word “''from,''” so as to be read: “a child ''from,'' or the gift of, Jehovah.” A singular instance of a deceptive reading is as follows: Margoliouth, a very learned Jew, calls attention to the fact that the wearing of the “''fringes''” is alluded to in the New Testament – in the case of the woman troubled with an issue of blood, who thought that if she should but touch the “''hem of his garment''” she would recover. Here he says the Greek word is ''“Craspedon,”'' meaning, literally, if she could but touch the “''fringes”'' of his garment. The wearing of the ''fringes'' had been commanded, to keep one in mind of the laws and ordinances, to obey them, but in lapse of time the custom had merged into a superstitious use, and the fringes were thought of as possessing a potent magical virtue, in, and of themselves. By this the woman thought that she could be cured by the magical virtue if she but touched them. Then it is that perceiving that virtue had gone out of him, the Master said the woman was right, and thus endorsed the ''fetich'' and its curative property. But by the same reception ''the garment'' on which the fringes were worn was esteemed to be a much stronger ''fetich,'' and possessed of magical virtues far more potent than the fringes themselves. This garment had a name, and was specifically called the “''Talith.''” Now in the Gospel of Mark the narrative is such as to set forth the conviction of the magical properties of both the ''fringes'' and the ''Talith'' on which they were worn. While the woman having the issue of blood is being cured by her touch of the fringes, the ruler enters the crowd with information

that his daughter is dead, and then follows the recital. He takes the girl by the hand and says “''Talitha cumi,”'' “which, being interpreted, is ''Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.''” The word “''Talith,''” is from the Hebrew ''tâlāl,'' meaning, ''to clothe,'' and means “''a garment,”'' and that garment on which the ''fringes'' were worn. It has no such meaning as “''damsel.''” The sentence seems only proper as a command to a person addressed by a proper name, as “''Talitha arise!''” But in the connection, to mention the word itself, was to give the whole symbolism away as embracing the ''Talith'' and the ''Fringes'' worn on it, as a favourite ''fetich'', therefore the word was given to those who understood, and the paraphrase of “''Damsel, I say unto thee, arise,''” was made for the vulgar and the unlearned. It was an easy and cheap piece of innocent cheat. “Cheap John” miracles were performed with just as much ease as the fabrication of a nursery story to cover a corner puzzle or conundrum. It was of a piece with the story of boys making mud pies and birds, as to which the birds of one of the boys flew away. In another passage of the Greek we read “why are ye baptized for the dead?” where the broad unmeaning ''επι'' is placed in the margin for the real word of the text ''ὑπερ'' meaning ''“for the salvation of”;'' the real significance having reference to a custom of vicarious baptism by placing the dead unbaptised on a bench, with a live person underneath. The question was asked of the corpse: “Wilt thou be baptised?” with answer of proxy “I will,” and the live man was baptized ''υπερ των νεκρων in place of,'' or ''for the benefit or salvation of the dead.'' So transparent a fraud would not do for an average public, although it might tend to lead the stupid towards “High Church.”

{{Style P-Quote|1=“''And on the Pentecostal Sunday itself, the seventh Lord’s day''

''from Easter,'' <span style="font-variant:small-caps">at the noontide hour</span> ''of the day,'' <span style="font-variant:small-caps">by the sun</span>, ''Constantine was received up to'' <span style="font-variant:small-caps">his God</span>.”}}