Edit a literary work in the Comprehensive Theosophical Dictionary: Skinner J.R. - No Error

The work's text or other content following the template.

{{OCR to proofread}} {{Page aside margins}} {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=2|n=12|p=492}} {{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 {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=2|n=12|p=493}}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 {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=2|n=12|p=494}}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.” But one of the most interesting and instructive pieces of imposition is one recorded outside the sacred record, by a shepherd of the flock. It is contained in the rare history of that king of butchers Constantine, and of that chief theological diplomatist Eusebius. Constantine was a worshipper of Mithras the Sun-God, whose priests were the Magi, who observed the natal day of that God every 25th of December or Christmas day, and whose mode of religion embraced ''baptism,'' a ''eucharistic feast, confession'', ''resurrection from the dead,'' and ''angelology with hell:'' so running on all fours with the Christianity which Constantine co-adapted with his Mithraic observance, that the Christian fathers had to claim, to save themselves from the charge of theft, that the Devil with his usual cunning and astuteness had prophetically anticipated the whole business, to make a claim of priority when the ''time should come'' to play his little game of thimble rig. Constantine was either for Mithras or the other, agreeably to circumstances, standing as he did half-way betwixt with the difference only of ''a name to call the thing by.'' His coin bore on the reverse, “''To the invincible Sun, my guardian,”'' while the other “''first called Christians at Antioch,''” was lord of the ''eighth'' day, or the day of that same invincible Sun, called Sunday. Now the time came for this goody-goody to die, and he wished to make the work of his statesmanship complete, in the consolidation of the empire by the cementing influence of a new form of a very old Persian and Hebrew religion, to be enforced by the strong hand of the civil government. For this purpose he is baptised with great pomp and ceremony on Whitsun Sunday. And as to this that arch-fraud Eusebius comments as follows: – {{Style P-Quote|1=“''And on the Pentecostal Sunday itself, the seventh Lord’s day'' {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=2|n=12|p=495}}''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>.”}} Let us paraphrase the “lay” of our “Now you see it and now you don’t” {{Style P-Quote|1=“The sun being in the South as the beauty and glory of the day – ''at high noon'' – ''on the meridian,'' the soul of our ''brother'' Constantine ascended in a ''plumb line'' directly to his God; and so says the master of the Lodge, Amen.”}} Let us, to close, refer to a bare-faced interpolation in the sacred record, serving by deceiving locution the commendable purpose of a chain to bind the edifice of the Church of Constantine and Eusebius more firmly and compactly together. When the Master says to Peter: “Thou art Peter the stone and on this stone I will found my ''Church,'' and the gates of Hell,” etc., there was nothing known but the Temple and Synagogue. The word Synagogue meant the ''Congregation,'' whereas it was long after, that the faction or split or separation was formed which was called ''Ecclesia,'' Church, or ''Separatists'' or ''Come-outers.'' Peter must have had an exceedingly stupid vacant look as he listened to this Hottentot statement. Now a very learned divine, who caught on to the difficulty, said that this was evidently an expression used ''prophetically,'' which by the assistance of the power of the Holy Spirit Peter was enabled to understand by ''clairvoyance.'' But “Go to! Go to!” It displays irreverence to look too closely into the make-up of the sacred text, for its composition. We should accept the broad ideal without any vain and prurient curiosity. |signature=J. R. S.<br />Cincinnati.}} {{Footnotes}}