How does JAHBULON even make sense?

Originally posted by Roark
Sorry dude, I wasn't trying to imply that you were referencing Knight.

It was just my understanding that the notion of the Jehovah-Baal-Osiris composite god originated from his work, which spawned a lot of the Church of England's religious objections to Freemasonry.

If I'm not mistaken, Knight borrowed this idea from Hannah's anti-Masonic book "Darkness Visible", which also makes that claim.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. The Ritual of the Royal Arch does not claim these are names of God, nor does it claim they are any type of "composite" god. It simply states that they "describe" God. Since all three words mean "Lord" in Semitic languages, with the exception of "On" which means "Lord" in the Greek, the Ritual is correct.

The posts in this thread sparked a tiny bit of interest for me on this subject as I sat in the Hotel waiting to go see a client. I had forgotten about reading this some years ago and fortunately it's available on-line.

(Sorry for the long quotes, but it is necessary to the thread)

This comes from Morris & de Hoyos' book "Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry?"

www.srmason-sj.org...

Note that it's "Bel" and not "Buh" or "Bul"

"The "Meaning" of Jabulon


Early Masons did not have the historical resources available to today's researchers. This handicap caused them to rely on their own ingenuity, and they were limited in what they could write concerning the origins this tri-lingual "word." However, for over a hundred years the General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States has clearly distinguished between the tri-lingual "word" and the name of God.

In an article on the word "Bel," Masonic encyclopedist Albert Mackey tells us:

It has, with Jah and On, been introduced into the Royal Arch as a representative of the Tetragrammaton [the Hebrew letters YHWH or JHVH, i.e., "Jehovah"], which it and the accompanying words have sometimes ignorantly been made to displace.

At the session of the General Grand Chapter of the United States, in 1871, this error was corrected;

and while the Tetragrammaton was declared to be the true omnific word, the other three [words] were permitted to be retained as merely explanatory.(59)

An example of this pre-1871 misunderstanding is seen in Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor (an outdated exposure cited by Rev. Ankerberg and Dr. Weldon some 30 times) which declared the tri-lingual word to be the Grand Omnific Royal Arch Word.(60)

But Mackey's statement is clear: Jehovah is the "true omnific word" whereas Jah, Bel, and On are only explanatory. The misunderstanding appears to have arisen following (or perhaps due to) the anti-Masonic period of 1826-1840. If a statement in David Bernard's anti-Masonic exposure, Light on Masonry, is accurate the tri-lingual word (given as "Jahbuhlun") was not used at all in some early American Royal Arch Chapters, and those that included it attached no religious explanation to it.(61)

Like other expose's however, Bernard's ritual texts cannot be fully trusted. William L. Stone withdrew from Freemasonry during the anti-Masonic period and published a book on the subject. In spite of this he was honest enough to admit that "infamous interpolations" were added to Bernard's ritual texts.

Concerning Bernard's Royal Arch expose' Stone wrote:

The obligation has never been so given, within the range of my masonic experience, and is not sanctioned or allowed by the Grand Chapter, having jurisdiction in the premises. Nor have I, as yet, found a Royal Arch Mason who recollects ever to have heard the obligation so given. (62)

But what did Mackey mean when he wrote that Jah, Bel and On were "explanatory" of the name Jehovah?

Unaware of its true origins, some early ritualists tried to explain the tri-lingual word using etymology. First, Jabulon was divided into syllables (Jao-Bul-On, Jah-Buh-Lun, Jah-Bel-On, etc.) on the supposition that they were Hebrew, Chaldean, Assyrian, Egyptian or other foreign words for God. Like Hebrew names in the Old Testament, some believed that Jabulon had a meaning which could be recovered. Old Testament names often had meanings which were intended to glorify God. For example, Azaziah means "Jehovah is strong," Eliphaz means "God is victorious," and Elijah means "Jehovah is my God." The following example explores possible roots of Jah-Bel-On.

Jah.--This could be a name of God used in Psalm 68:4, "Extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him."

Bel.-- Rev. Ankerberg and Dr. Weldon accuse Freemasonry of paganism because some Masons tried to equate this syllable with the word baal. Although Baal was the name of a Phoenician deity, it is also a Hebrew word meaning "lord" or "master,"(63) and when it forms part of a name it can be used to identify Jehovah. A son of David, for example, is called both Eliada, "God Knows" (2 Samuel 5:16), and Beeliada, "Baal knows" (1 Chronicles 14:7).

Another man, who was a friend of David, was named Bealiah (1 Chronicles 12:5), meaning "Jehovah is Baal" or "Jehovah is Lord."(64) After winning a victory over the Philistines, David named the location Baal-Perazim (2 Samuel 5:20; 1 Chronicles 14:11), which means, "Lord of breaches."

On.--This Hebrew word means "force" or "power."(65)

A more meaningful application is found in the Septuagint, an ancient Greek version of the Old Testament, wherein God announced Himself to Moses with the words ego eimi ho On, "I am the Being" (Exodus 3:14).(66)

The words ho On mean "The Being," "The Eternal" or "The I AM." In the Greek New Testament the words ho On appear in Revelation 1:4, signifying "the One who is."(67)

Based on the above, possible meanings for Jabulon include "Jehovah, powerful Lord" or "Jehovah, the Lord, the I AM." Some English Royal Arch rituals suggested the syllables meant "Lord in Heaven, the Father of All," while some American rituals noted that the vowels in Jah-Bel-On, added to the four letters which spell God's name in Hebrew (YHWH or JHVH: yud, heh, vaw, heh), yielded the English pronunciation "Jehovah," much as the vowels in the Hebrew word adonai were combined with the four consonants to produce "Jahovah."

Unable to find any sensible meaning in such speculations other Grand Chapters eliminated the "words" altogether.

It is significant that Rev. Ankerberg and Dr. Weldon completely ignore the ritual text of Edmond Ronayne's Chapter Masonry (an exposure they cite) in this matter and rather resort to allegation. The reason is simple. Ronayne fails to support their contention that Jabulon is a secret God. According to Ronayne, the presiding officer explains the Tetragrammaton and the tri-lingual word by saying:

This word is composed of four Hebrew characters, which you see inclosed within the triangle, corresponding in our language to J.H.V.H., and cannot be pronounced without the aid of other letters, which are supplied by the key words on the three sides of the triangle, that being an emblem of Deity. The Syriac, Chaldeic [sic] and Egyptian words taken as one is therefore called the Grand Omnific Royal Arch Word.(68)

It thus becomes clear that however complex and misguided the early attempts were to find a meaning for this word, Jabulon is not a special or secret Masonic God. This claim is merely another invention of anti-Masonry."

Perhaps that will clear some things up. There is no Jahbuhlon, Jahbelon, etc. There is Jah. There is Bel / Bul. There is Om, On, etc.

But no "Masonic God named Jahbulon.

(going back to sleep mode now)

Thank you all for the time and patience spent on this subject.

Appak, I do apologise if I misinterpreted your posts. You just seem to come off as quite aggressive.

Thank you for the Morris & De Hoyo quote. I read through this link when it was pointed out to me by Masonic Light some time ago. At the time, the explanation seemed very acceptable.

But, this explanation is the same as that of Canon Tydeman, and this is where it gets tricky. The Church, being very dogmatic as to the nature of the Hebrew language and it's application to God (The High Anglican Church played a role in the Synod. Having been brought up a High Anglican, I know how much they would rather be a part of the Catholic faith and split from the C of E. They are playing a major role now in trying to get the Anglican faith to be absorbed into Catholicism. They love their Hebrew, and their Latin). If the term consists wholly of Hebrew terms denoting descriptions of God. It is in fact a name for God.

Originally posted by Appak
But Mackey's statement is clear: Jehovah is the "true omnific word" whereas Jah, Bel, and On are only explanatory.

But even if, as is the case in many other Royal Arch Rituals, the distinction between name and description continues to be stressed and the argument is accepted ‘that we can leave Syria and Egypt and Chaldea out of it altogether’ and turn to the Hebrew language as the source of ‘JAHBULON’, the confusion between the status of the words round the circle and on the triangle is not solved since, in Hebrew, description and name are interlocked; the description is the ‘name'.

Link

Now whether this is faulty Masonic scholarship or the Church being pedantic (I have a feeling as to which opinion will hold sway) is debatable.

And I guess that is what we are doing.

If the image I posted earlier can be deemed genuine. It only adds to the case of the Church.

In the circle we see JE HO VAH, broken into syllables. It is well known that these combined create a single name for God.

In the Triangle we see JAH BUL ON. Now it may very well be that they are meant to be interpreted as individual descriptions of God. But don't you agree that anyone seeing that image would immediately assume that if the three syllables in the circle are to be combined, it would stand to reason that the terms in the triangle are also to be combined?

Perhaps this is all quite trivial, but it is getting to the root of the whole JAHBULON question.

Originally posted by Appak
Note that it's "Bel" and not "Buh" or "Bul"

Yet in Macoy's Dictionary there is no entry for "BEL", it is contained in the entry for "BUL." Which (to my mind) make them interchangeable. "BEL" in some jurisdictions, "BUL" in others. And as Macoy states, "...of great variety."

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
BUL. The compounds of this divine name Bel, are of great variety. Bel-us was used by the Chaldeans; and the deity was known amongst the ancient Celtae by the name of Bel or Belenus, which title, by modern authors, is identified with Apollo. The primitive name of Britain was Vel-ynys, the island of Bel; and the fires lighted up on May-day were in honour of this deity, and called Bel's fire. The inhabitants made use of a word, known only to themselves, to express the unutterable name of the Deity, of which the letters O. I. W. were a sacred symbol. In this they resembled the Jews, who always said Adonai, when the name of Jehovah occurred. Baal was the most ancient god of the Canaanites, and was referred to the sun. Manasseh raised altars to this deity, and worshipped him in all the pomp of heathen superstition; and when these altars were destroyed by Josiah, the worship of Baal was identified with that of the sun.

Can anyone explain this to me:

The Aldersgate Mystical Lecture states:

The word on the triangle is that sacred and mysterious name you have just solemnly engaged yourself never to pronounce... It is a compound word, and the combination forms the word... It is in four languages, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syriac, and Egyptian. (J..) is the Chaldee name of God, signifying "His Essence and majesty incomprehensible." It is also a Hebrew word signifying "I am and shall be" thereby expressing the actual, future, and eternal existence of the Most High. (B..) is a Syriac word denoting Lord, or Powerful, it is in itself a compound word, being formed from the preposition B..., in or on, and U., Heaven or on High; therefore the meaning of the word is Lord in Heaven, or on High. (0.) is an Egyptian word signifying Father of All, thereby expressing the Omnipotence of the Father of All, as in that well-known prayer, Our Father, which art in Heaven. The various significations of the words may thus be collected: I am and shall be; Lord in Heaven;

Link

It is stated to be from the Aldersgate Ritual. Is this fraudulent?

We also have these quotes from Tydemans address:

Let me remind you of what was said last year: that the words on the triangle are intended as a description of God "as the three original Grand Masters might have done so, remembering that they all spoke different languages", the three languages quoted being Hebrew, Syriac, and Egyptian. Norman Hackney, in his original article went even further than that and maintained that here we have "the Name of God in three languages; just that: no more and no less."

Tradition dies hard and it may well be that many zealous companions will go on quoting Syriac and Egyptian and perpetuating this extraordinary jumble of explanations. I will not say that they are wrong but I will say that I think they are definitely unwise in the present climate of opinion.

Now, I have been a mason long enough to know that nothing that is done in another Lodge or Chapter can be described as "wrong", it can only be described as "different".

So what can we offer instead of this Egypto-Syriac conglomeration? Fortunately there is a perfectly good explanation of the words on the triangle, using only the Hebrew language — an explanation that cannot be faulted in any way, and here it is.


The first syllable indicates eternal existence, the continuing and never-ending I AM. The second syllable, as we are told later (unfortunately only as an alternative) really does mean in Hebrew, "in heaven" or "on high" and the third syllable is a Hebrew word for Strength or Power.

It is for this reason that I beg leave to draw your attention to my Alternative View of an entirely Hebrew interpretation which emphasises our reverence for God whose sacred and mysterious Name is inscribed on the circle, while the triangle proclaims Him in no uncertain terms as "The True and Living God — The Most High — The Almighty".

This seems to me that the term/s was important enough for Tydeman to offer an alternative explanation, so it could be kept in the Ritual.

I am sure that when our ritual was revised in 1836 it all made perfectly good sense to those who revised it.

Link















[edit on 20/8/2007 by Beelzebubba]

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Ah, the urbane Trinityman, finally someone with manners.

Don't catch me down the pub on a Saturday night then

Thank you for your reply Trinityman. I concede that the term possibly went out of the ritual around 1985 and wrote so earlier. My point (all along) was to prove that the term came from within the Fraternity and that it was used as a term to describe God. Tydeman admitted as much.

Having dredged some of my old books out of boxes, I too have not discovered the words used in any ritual, English, Scottish or American. They do however appear as bold as brass on the RA plate used in English Chapters (and photographed above). Or at least used to, as the plate I am familiar with does not look look like that.

However, and this is most interesting, I have found reference to three words in a 19th century "exposure" that I have a copy of, Printed by Reeves and probably compiled by Richard Carlyle. The ritual in this book is probably pre-Union, and certainly the Craft degrees are closer in content to modern US blue masonry than anything in England.

The Royal Arch 'exposure' in this book includes the 'Veils', which were all but eliminated from England by 1817. But (and I am getting to the point, honestly) it includes a description of a word which is the language of the Deity in three languages - Chaldee, Hebrew and Syriac. It doesn't give any more detail and doesn't say what the word is. However given my knowledge of RA Masonry I would suspect it is not JBL but a different word, which is used to represent The True And Living God Most High.

Sorry I can't be more definitive.

Trinity, you reinforce all the positive things that I hear about the "Brotherhood."

Now don't go all soft on me

[edit on 8/20/07 by Trinityman]

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Can anyone explain this to me:

The Aldersgate Mystical Lecture states:

The word on the triangle is that sacred and mysterious name you have just solemnly engaged yourself never to pronounce... It is a compound word, and the combination forms the word... It is in four languages, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syriac, and Egyptian. (J..) is the Chaldee name of God, signifying "His Essence and majesty incomprehensible." It is also a Hebrew word signifying "I am and shall be" thereby expressing the actual, future, and eternal existence of the Most High. (B..) is a Syriac word denoting Lord, or Powerful, it is in itself a compound word, being formed from the preposition B..., in or on, and U., Heaven or on High; therefore the meaning of the word is Lord in Heaven, or on High. (0.) is an Egyptian word signifying Father of All, thereby expressing the Omnipotence of the Father of All, as in that well-known prayer, Our Father, which art in Heaven. The various significations of the words may thus be collected: I am and shall be; Lord in Heaven;

Link

It is stated to be from the Aldersgate Ritual. Is this fraudulent?

Hard to say. You won't meet anyone on this forum who knows Aldersgate better than me, and I can tell you that is not in the ritual. It may have been in the past but it is not in the 1999 or the 2005 editions.

The equivalent portion of the Mystical Lecture from Aldersgate is:

On the plate of gold is that great, awful, tremendous and incomprehensible Name of the Most High. It signifies I AM THAT I AM, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, who WAS and IS, and IS TO COME, the Almighty. It is the Sacred and Mysterious Name of the actual, future, eternal, unchangeable and all-sufficient God who alone has His being in and from Himself and gives to all others their being; so that HE IS what HE WAS, WAS what HE IS, and will remain both WHAT HE WAS and WHAT HE IS, from everlasting to everlasting, all creatures being dependent on His mighty will and power.

Aldersgate Ritual (1999) publ. by Lewis Masonic

Two things to note here. (1) They are dramatically different, and (2) the Word (as I mentioned in my post above) is not JBL.

An 1897 Scottish Royal Arch ritual does have a section of the Mystical lecture far more similar to your quoted passage. However the context of the passage makes it clear that it is referring to a different word.

My conclusions are as follows.

1. The Aldersgate Ritual may have been altered between 1985 and 1999 and your quoted passage removed. It has been changed many times over the years - they call it simplified but I call it dumbing down.

2. The quoted passage is not referring to JBL but to another word.

I'll go back to where I started.

Originally posted by Trinityman
The sacred & mysterious name of the TALGMH is not mentioned anywhere in the quoted text, quite rightly, but the poster is making an assumption that it is Jahbulon or some such derivative.

Nowhere in Canon Tydeman's paper does he refer to JBL, despite the paraphrased version on the other site you linked to which inserts the letters 'for the ease of the reader'. Canon Tydeman was referring to a different word in his address, which has already been covered earlier in this thread but you missed it. Both Nygdan and Appak have referred to it.

I think all of this is a massive misdirection by someone.

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Appak, I do apologise if I misinterpreted your posts. You just seem to come off as quite aggressive.

I don't mean to...sometimes my fingers type faster than my brain-waves flow.

Actually I'm glad you're interested in the subject and would be happy to read whatever you might find as to the origin/use of the terms.

But as far as Royal Arch Ritual goes (I'm past High Priest of my Chapter by the way...and I LOVE the Royal Arch Degree) I take the references at face value (much the way that Morris & de Hoyos explained them) and give them no great importance beyond that.

Sheville & Gould's "Guide to the Royal Arch Chapter" by the way (available from Macoy Publishing in Virginia) includes a section about these three words (again...not taken as ONE) and include "Bel" If you'd like I could scan that and e-mail it to you. It's only 2 or 3 pages (in fine print that I find I have to get my reading glasses out for these days) :-)

Best,

Appak

Originally posted by FreiMaurer
Jah becomes "yahweh" oh really? When It's YHWH and that's all that's known, the Tetragrammatron.

Bul becomes Baal?

What?

And On becomes Osiris?

How?

Where do these people put this crap together?

YHWH in hebrew has multiple ways to be pronounced which is why jews dont use it and just say "The Name" HaShem so as not to mistakingly take gods name in vain.

Some writers have erroneously concluded that "On" was an Egyptian name for God. This is due to a misunderstanding of a verse in the Bible, namely Genesis 41:45, where it is said that Joseph, the son of Abraham, married the daughter of the "priest of On".

However, those writers did not double-check their source. "On" was actually the Egyptian city known by the Greeks as Heliopolis. However, in Greek, the word "On" means "Being", and is the root word for "ontology". Plato wrote, "Let us speak of the God On, who has no beginning or end".

Concerning the question about why we do not combine the three descriptive words when we *do* combine the syllables Jeh ho vah, I suppose the only real answer is because that's what's said in the ritual. The ritual says that Jehovah is the name of God, while the other three describe the characteristics.

On a personal note, I tend to agree with Brother Albert Pike that the above is just nonsense anyway. Pike believed that this description as given in the ritual was make believe, and that the true meaning was found in the fact that both "words" contain three syllables. In that case, it wouldn't matter what the actually syllables were, as long as there were three. For example, "Jahbulon" could be dispensed with entirely and replaced with "John H. Smith", and still be symbolically correct because the real meaning is hidden in the number of syllables, not in the actual words themselves.

reply to post by Trinityman

Originally posted by Trinityman
Nowhere in Canon Tydeman's paper does he refer to JBL, despite the paraphrased version on the other site you linked to which inserts the letters 'for the ease of the reader'. Canon Tydeman was referring to a different word in his address, which has already been covered earlier in this thread but you missed it. Both Nygdan and Appak have referred to it.

I'm baaack...

No misdirection on my part Trinity. But I do believe that there has been a massive misdirection from some parties on this forum.

Canon Tydeman may make no direct reference to the term Jah Bul On in his speech, that is to be expected. What he does offer as proof that this is indeed the term he is refering to is stated right at the beginning of the address.

ME Pro First Grand Principal and Companions, recent attacks on Freemasonry have shown up all too clearly that the Royal Arch is one of our most vulnerable fronts, and the thing that our critics have seized upon as proof of our evil intentions is the composite word or words on the triangle in the very centre of every Chapter.

Unfortunately we are not giving the right impression at all. Only the other day I was accosted by a vociferous churchwarden: "How can you", he said, "How can you, a minister of religion, take part in ceremonies which invoke heathen gods by name?", and as evidence for his accusations, he brandished before me, not a copy of Stephen Knight’s book, but a copy of the minutes of last November’s Grand Chapter containing the address by ME Comp the Revd Francis Heydon, the then Third Grand Principal.

Link

Now I STRONGLY doubt that the "vociferous churchwarden" was refering to the Hebrew characters within the triangle. Not when the derivatives of the names of two Pagan Gods (according to Macoy) are right there on the triangle, rendered in lettering that is much easier to understand and read.

Let me remind you of what was said last year: that the words on the triangle are intended as a description of God "as the three original Grand Masters might have done so, remembering that they all spoke different languages", the three languages quoted being Hebrew, Syriac, and Egyptian.

Link supplied above

According to Macoy,

Jah - Hebrew

Bul - Syriac

On - Egyptian

It is for this reason that I beg leave to draw your attention to my Alternative View of an entirely Hebrew interpretation which emphasises our reverence for God whose sacred and mysterious Name is inscribed on the circle, while the triangle proclaims Him in no uncertain terms as "The True and Living God — The Most High — The Almighty".

Link supplied above

Now what I believe is that Tydeman's "Alternative View" has become the accepted version and that is why you continually make reference to that explanation.

Unfortunately, as I have stated earlier. To be an entirely Hebrew interpretation is to actually name the Deity, not assign attributes to it.

... in Hebrew, description and name are interlocked; the description is the ‘name'.

Link supplied above

I have posted all of this before.

One way to clear this up would be to have access to Revd Francis Heydon's minutes. This, I know, is not going to happen.

The other, and I think it is a very simple solution, one that would also endear our Masonic membership to the fans of podcasting on this site. Why don't a few of you Masons do podcasts that have you speaking the term? Something along the lines of:

"Hi this is __________. Debunking the Jah Bul On myth on ABOVETOPSECRET.COM."

I don't think you would have to worry about the podcast being taken out of context and used against you, as the T&C have very strict rules about that.

Hmmm... The more I think about it, the more chuffed I am by the latter idea.


I have revitalised this thread because in re-reading it I can see a certain amount of obfuscation. And it's not on my part.



[edit on 23/1/2008 by Beelzebubba]

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
I have revitalised this thread because in re-reading it I can see a certain amount of obfuscation. And it's not on my part.

Greetings Beelzebubba! (Like the name, by the way.)

I've tried to stumble my way through this thread as I am a very active Royal Arch Mason and have quite a library of Masonic (and other fraternal) rituals, histories, etcetera.

I'm curious as to whom is obfuscating, and can he be restrained.

It's been said repeatedly in this thread that the words Jah, Bul or Bel, and On or Om (all depending on the jurisdiction) are, indeed used in the Royal Arch Degree.

As to the pedigree of the words themselves, well, Masonic writers sometimes got a bit carried away, however they are somewhat significant in explaining a portion of the Degree.

BUT, (as has been said here by others) these words are used as just that:

WORDS. Plural.

NOT as a single word.

If someone were to cram them together into A word, he would be doing so in error.

reply to post by senrak


Welcome back Senrak. (The moniker does get some chuckles)

I haven't seen you treading these boards in quite some time.

As far as the distortion goes. I have recieved answers that run the gamut.
That some of the terms don't exist within Masonry, to the concession that they do but (as you and others have stated) are used separately. To no-one having seen the image I posted in their lodge or having heard of it's use. That the term was an out-dated form of recognition or was the name of a character. All the way to my research being completely faulty.

I am fully willing to believe that the terms do exist as separate descriptions and are not the name of some "God". But, if they are to be taken as Hebrew descriptions, this is faulty and does indeed constitute a name and not a description (as I quoted above) for description and name are interlocking in Hebrew.

It is clear to me that canon Tydeman's address concerns the term/s Jah Bul On and not the Hebrew characters contained within the circle.



Have you ever seen this image in use or in any of the texts in your library?

Thank you for your reply.

[edit on 23/1/2008 by Beelzebubba]

Originally posted by Beelzebubba


As far as the distortion goes. I have received answers that run the gamut.
That some of the terms don't exist within Masonry, to the concession that they do but (as you and others have stated) are used separately. To no-one having seen the image I posted in their lodge or having heard of it's use. That the term was an out-dated form of recognition or was the name of a character.

Let me add that I do not think that the above constitues a "distortion". Different Masons who have researched the subject have simply drawn different conclusions, which accounts for the various interpretations.

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
As far as the distortion goes. I have recieved answers that run the gamut.
That some of the terms don't exist within Masonry, to the concession that they do but (as you and others have stated) are used separately. To no-one having seen the image I posted in their lodge or having heard of it's use. That the term was an out-dated form of recognition or was the name of a character. All the way to my research being completely faulty.

It's been a while since this was being discussed and I may be repeating some things that I've said (or perhaps others have said) but I think there could be a combination of all the above (with the exception of your research being "completely faulty" of course)

The main problem being that there is no "Universal" ritual of pretty much ANY of the Masonic Degrees. I've attended the Royal Arch Degree in numerous U.S. States and they can vary greatly. Many U.S. states have adopted the Ritual of the General Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons, but not all have. Those states that have not, practice a ritual that is in essence the same, but not identical. And, as said before, the practice of the numerous jurisdictions outside the U.S.A. ALSO varies greatly.

This being said, my particular jurisdiction (which uses the General Grand Chapter Ritual) uses Bel not Bul. I've seen one (of the several) U.K. versions of the Royal Arch too and their explanation of the degree varies as well.

Many people (Masons included) think that our degrees are the same everywhere and they simply are not. The basics are the same, but they are far from universal. So I can see how some would think that these words do not exist at all (as their particular jurisdiction may not use them) Some may deny them because they feel it's some sort of earth-shattering Masonic secret and some may be familiar (as am I) with a variation.

By the way, I've also seen Jahbuhlun, Jahbuhlon and Jahbelon but always in anti-Masonic writing. I've never seen a "word" composed of any combination of those words.

Even so, many will still contend that Jahbulon is the Masonic God.

Those guys truly amuse me.

Oh, and I almost forgot. Regarding the diagram you reposed. I've seen that in various forms, but (as stated above) with Bel rather than Bul.

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Welcome back Senrak.

(The moniker does get some chuckles)
Have you ever seen this image in use or in any of the texts in your library?
Thank you for your reply.

Thanks!

Honestly I have never seen that specific image, but similar ones. I'll be home this weekend (I have my sons for the weekend and they get bored with the 'old man' eventually) so I'll look through some of my books and see what I can dig up.

I do know my Grand Chapter (Kentucky) does NOT use bul. It's definitely bel, but the triangle doesn't look like that.

I'll also have to admit that I sort of like that diagram.

Thank you for your replies. I must say the clarity of the last two posts has been sparkling. You know you could have told me this two pages ago and saved us all a lot of heart-ache (Appak ).

I am a bit surprised by the amount of variation that occurs within the world of Freemasonry. Does this mean that the possibility exists that somewhere in the world Masons have bastardized the descriptions and crammed them together as one word?

The variation in the spellings and layout of the board seem to make the Duncan's Monitor ritual valid as well. Would this be correct?

Appak, you said this:

Originally posted by Appak
Obviously someone somewhere has crammed this all together (and yes, I DO know WHY they did it)

Is this something you can expand on or is it not for the eyes of the profane?

Then there is this lyric by the OTO's Francis X. King:

How the Simple Mason plies
Tool to Temple, See it rise!
Princes of Jerusalem,
How we mock and scoff at them!

Boaz broken,
Jachin gone,
Freely spoken
Jahbulon,
All above
Is overthrown
For the love
Of Babalon.

Link.
Was King ever a Mason? Regular or irregular?

ML, I do apologise for using the word "distortion" but as someone that I (and many others) hold to be quite the scholar on matters Masonic, I have the sneaking suspicion that you knew in what context I was refering to Jah Bul On and the Royal Arch. I also think that Trinityman was "skirting" the issue a bit because of his connection to the Aldersgate Ritual. Rather than "distortion" maybe "obfuscation" is the better word (I just didn't want to use it in two posts and have you guys going; "Look who's just recieved his word of the day" ).

Can it now be admitted that Jah Bul On is almost certainly the subject of canon Tydeman's address and not the Hebrew characters?

This of course brings me to my next question. What, in your experiences, is the common explanation of the terms. Hebrew alone or the Hebrew, Syriac and Egyptian? ML, I do remember your earlier post explaining the faulty scholarship with the explanation of On, but would this be known to all Lodges?

In the eyes of the Church it seems either explanation is unacceptable.

I would now think that the origin of Jah Bul On as a name lies with Walton Hannah's book.

Would the explanation given by the Church Synod as to the interlocking nature of description and name in Hebrew be valid to you guys?

This is all most exciting to me!

So what about my podcast idea fella's huh... huh?

I await your research Senrak.
Thank you.



[edit on 24/1/2008 by Beelzebubba]

Originally posted by Beelzebubba


I am a bit surprised by the amount of variation that occurs within the world of Freemasonry. Does this mean that the possibility exists that somewhere in the world Masons have bastardized the descriptions and crammed them together as one word?

I suppose there is the possibility, but they would not be in fraternal harmony with the General Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons International, or Grand Chapters recognized by it.

The variation in the spellings and layout of the board seem to make the Duncan's Monitor ritual valid as well. Would this be correct?

I cannot answer with complete accuracy because I cannot recall the exact layout that Duncan gives. I do remember that it's close. Some of Duncan's work is pretty accurate, but some is not. For example, I've never heard of anyone practicing a Past Masters degree that anywhere near to being similar to Duncan's.

Then there is this lyric by the OTO's Francis X. King:

How the Simple Mason plies
Tool to Temple, See it rise!
Princes of Jerusalem,
How we mock and scoff at them!

Boaz broken,
Jachin gone,
Freely spoken
Jahbulon,
All above
Is overthrown
For the love
Of Babalon.

Link.
Was King ever a Mason? Regular or irregular?

To my knowledge, King was never a Mason. Also, the above was not written by King. It was an O.T.O. ritual exposure. The ritual itself, including the above poem, was written by Aleister Crowley, who bore a pretty big grudge against regular Masonry.

This of course brings me to my next question. What, in your experiences, is the common explanation of the terms. Hebrew alone or the Hebrew, Syriac and Egyptian? ML, I do remember your earlier post explaining the faulty scholarship with the explanation of On, but would this be known to all Lodges?

Probably not. As to the actual definition given in the ritual, it depends upon which version is being used and in which jurisdiction. Some may say that it is Hebrew, Syriac, and Egyptian, while others may say they are from "Semitic languages", while others may just chalk it up to a mystery and say nobody knows.

Would the explanation given by the Church Synod as to the interlocking nature of description and name in Hebrew be valid to you guys?

You'll have to refresh my memory on what the Synod said. Personally, I think that the 3 words, at least more or less, mean "Lord". And therefore, they are descriptions of God instead of proper names.

This has ben the best thread in Secret Societies I have read in a long long time. You should all give yourselves a pat on the back !

Intelligent, urbane, civil and informative...there is hope for us yet

[edit on 24-1-2008 by RWPBR]

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Thank you for your replies. I must say the clarity of the last two posts has been sparkling. You know you could have told me this two pages ago and saved us all a lot of heart-ache (Appak

).

Darn. I thought I did say that. Maybe I *thought* about saying it and it slipped my mind.

I am a bit surprised by the amount of variation that occurs within the world of Freemasonry.

Masonic Light commented on this topic (in a different post) and I reiterate it. It can be confusing even for Masons. Sadly, many of our own Brothers believe that Masonry is exactly the same everywhere, and while the basics are, the rituals vary tremendously. Even the organization of the degrees beyond (note that I didn't say "above") the Third degree can vary.

Does this mean that the possibility exists that somewhere in the world Masons have bastardized the descriptions and crammed them together as one word?

That's highly possible.

The variation in the spellings and layout of the board seem to make the Duncan's Monitor ritual valid as well. Would this be correct?

Duncan's was never an official ritual and no one is certain as to it's origin. Specifically no one seems to know who Malcolm Duncan was. Obviously it wasn't the compiler's real name, lest there would be some sort of record of him.

That being said, I have heard from some of my Prince Hall Brothers that some of their Jurisdictions USE Duncan's as their official ritual.

So, I guess the answer to your specific question would be at least "possibly" Maybe even "yes."

Appak, you said this:

Originally posted by Appak
Obviously someone somewhere has crammed this all together (and yes, I DO know WHY they did it)

Is this something you can expand on or is it not for the eyes of the profane?

I think that if this HAS happened in legitimate rituals of regular jurisdictions, it has happened because of lack of knowledge. It was pointed out some pages ago that Albert Pike even referenced this "mongrel word" I'm not quite as eloquent as Pike, I call it a bastard word, because it is not, nor has it ever been A word, but always three (with numerous variations as noted).

Hi Beelzebubba

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
ML, I do apologise for using the word "distortion" but as someone that I (and many others) hold to be quite the scholar on matters Masonic, I have the sneaking suspicion that you knew in what context I was refering to Jah Bul On and the Royal Arch. I also think that Trinityman was "skirting" the issue a bit because of his connection to the Aldersgate Ritual.

Well, if it came over like that it wasn't intentional. As I said, that word (or combination or words) in not in the Aldersgate ritual I learned. It may have once been there, its really hard to say as I don't know - it's clearly still in other rituals so it may have been.

Incidentally, there are numerous variations of Royal Arch ritual within the UK alone. However I would venture to guess that they are all relatively similar compared to US ritual, and consequently I would guess the JBL-thing isn't in any of them

The photo you posted is very similar indeed to an item in use in English Royal Arch ceremonies. The only difference, in fact, is the presence of the JBL-thing.

I feel an urge to quote a passage from the website of Supreme Grand Chapter:

The allegory of the exaltation ceremony is based on the Old Testament telling of the return to Jerusalem from the Babylonish captivity to rebuild the city and temple. In clearing the ground of the original temple for the foundations of the second temple, the candidate makes a number of discoveries which emphasise the centrality of God to man's life and existence and, without transgressing the bounds of religion, lead the candidate to a consideration of the nature of God and his personal relationship with Him, whatever his religion might be.

This passage emphasizes the universality of freemasonry generally and Royal Arch masonry specifically, and rather rules out the possibility of the Royal Arch, either overtly or surreptitiously, attempting to introduce a specific named God into the equation, be he from Chaldea, Babylon, Mesopotamia or even New Jersey.

reply to post by Trinityman



Hi Trinity,

The only reason I was maintaining a degree of skepticism with what you had written was purely because the Synod had taken a particular interest in the Aldersgate Ritual. Were you also a member of the Aldersgate Chapter of Improvement?

In reference to canon Tydeman and his address. JBO had to be the subject he was addressing. As he states that he is speaking of the composite words on the triangle and not the Hebrew characters that sit at the points of the triangle within the circle.

I must admit, I am very curious as to just what sits inside the triangle these days.

I readily accept your explanation that the words are just that... Words, plural and not a word or name.

But I can also see where the Church got it's interpretation. Even though the explanation given by ML shows that there is (in the USA at least) no one rule as to what language JBL derives from.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Probably not. As to the actual definition given in the ritual, it depends upon which version is being used and in which jurisdiction. Some may say that it is Hebrew, Syriac, and Egyptian, while others may say they are from "Semitic languages", while others may just chalk it up to a mystery and say nobody knows.

I'm curious as to the British take on this.

Thanks Trinity.

ML,

Thanks for your reply.

The Synods take on JBO was that if the descriptions are indeed Hebrew then they are also a name.

... in Hebrew, description and name are interlocked; the description is the ‘name'.

Would this be correct to your mind?

Thanks again to Masonic Light, Appak, Trinityman and Senrak.

As Senrak and Appak pointed out, you guys had probably told me these things earlier and it took a while for my brain to process it. Or the last few posts were dumbed down enough for me to understand. Thank you all for your patience with me.

God knows, I'll probably have some more annoying questions for you in the future.

Cheers.