Overview of the Necronomicon

reply to post by dragonridr


That's true. Sort of.

See the post above yours for the source material (The Picatrix) which likely inspired Lovecraft. And remember, folks; bastardized, plagiarized or falsified texts do not become any more true with age.

Or any less true, depending on how you look at it, I guess.

Wandering Scribe
reply to post by Kantzveldt

 

First off, Sumerian and Babylonian mythology differ in many respects. The Simon Necronomicon is based upon Babylonian, not Sumerian, mythology.

Well it does contain the Sumerian text 'Inanna's descent into the Underworld' and Babylonian mythology was based upon the Sumerian, so....




reply to post by cavtrooper7




No, because we suspect you'll use it to summon Cthulhu



reply to post by tetra50


[

Kantz: What's your opinion of the crazy arab's traditional role in all this, and the mythos this is where the original nemonicron came from?

Well certainly the core texts were recovered from Arabic speaking lands, and as has suggested there may have been surviving occultic traditions based upon Babylonian texts that had been translated into Semitic language, in the Near East and North Africa.

As above so below.. or so the saying goes..

Interesting how the 7 gods, heavens, gates are symbolic of the 7 chakras in man..
Each one opens up and allows energy to flow through it.. each energy its own unique print..

Just a thought

reply to post by BlavatskyChannel


Yes interesting . . .

. . . the Necro as a living book, the pathworkings the journey through those gates, and an exceptionally difficult journey to undertake one would imagine, not for the feight of heart as they say or without an experienced guide or a great friend to help one through the maze.

Ahhh for the love of boooodah jewels

So is this Necronomicon still worth reading in your opinion? Or is it likely to mislead and confuse?

reply to post by SomethingsJustNotRight



It's worth looking at if you want to consider how ancient Mesopotamian religion became the occult, or simply enjoy the company of Demons, but i suppose the sensible answer is that it's a dangerous liability.

reply to post by Kantzveldt

Well it does contain the Sumerian text 'Inanna's descent into the Underworld' and Babylonian mythology was based upon the Sumerian, so....

That's an inaccurate correlation. For one thing, the chapter you're referring to is called "The Sleep of Ishtar", and Ishtar is the Semitic name of Inanna; the Babylonian Inanna, not the Sumerian Inanna. Further, Simon's translation of the Descent of Inanna is all wrong. Here's a brief outline of what Inanna's descent entails according to Sumerian cuneiform tablets:

Inanna, after becoming Queen of Heaven by capturing the E-Ana from Anu, decides that she also wants to rule over her sister's realm, the palace of Irkalla in the Underworld, called Kur. Inanna knows her goal is a dangerous one, so she brings along her maidservant/lover, Ninšubur, and together they set off for the entrance to Irkalla. Arriving at the seven barred gates, Inanna tells Ninšubur to wait three days for her return. If she does not return in three day's time, Ninšubur is to go to the É-Kur temple in Nippur and request assistance from Enlil. If Enlil declines, Ninšubur is to go to the É-kiš-nu-ngal temple in Ur and request Nanna's assistance. If Nanna declines, Ninšubur is to go to the É-abzu temple in Eridu and request Enki's assistance. Further, everywhere that Ninšubur goes, she is to set up a lament for Inanna so that all of Sumer will mourn Inanna's absence. Ninšubur agrees, and Inanna approaches the gates.

The gate-keeper, Neti, stops Inanna beyond the seventh gate and asks her what business she has coming to the Underworld (road of no return) dressed in her royal vestments (the seven sacred me Inanna adorned herself with before coming). In response, Inanna says that she has come to grieve with her sister, Ereškigal, over the death of her husband, the Bull of Heaven, Gugalana. Neti tells Inanna to wait where she is and that he will deliver her message to Ereškigal. Upon doing so, Ereškigal sees through Inanna's lie, and recognizes that Inanna wants to claim her kingdom just as she did An's temple in Erech (Uruk). Ereškigal also knows that Gugalana's death was Inanna's fault (Inanna having sent the Bull of Heaven against Gilgameš and Enkidu, who killed it). Ereškigal tells Neti to let Inanna in, but at each gate to remove one of her royal me, so that Inanna will arrive powerless and naked when she comes before Ereškigal; the same way the dead do.

Neti follows Ereškigal's command, and admits Inanna through each of the seven gates, removing a me at each one so that Inanna arrives naked and powerless before Ereškigal. In turn, Ereškigal accuses Inanna of killing her husband, and now attempting to steal her kingdom. Inanna is judged guilty by the seven dreaded Anunnaki of the Underworld, and sentenced to death. Inanna is punished with three curses (cry of guilt, word of wrath, eye of death) and killed.

Above, Ninšubur does as Inanna instructed, visiting Nippur, Ur, and Eridu. Gaining, finally, the ear of Enki, Ninšubur is given two sexless creations (Kurgarra and Galatur) who can by-pass the laws of the Underworld and help resurrect Inanna. Enki gives Ninšubur strict instructions to follow for delivering the two, and gives further instructions to his two creations on how to appease Ereškigal so she will allow them to make a request. Ninšubur and the two sexless creations adhere to Enki's every word, and together the three of them are able to resurrect Inanna, returning the Queen of Heaven to her rightful place in the land of Sumer.

Of course, the Gallû demons are loosed on Inanna and Ninšubur, who then have to seek a replacement for Inanna, since none may leave the Underworld without supplying one of equal value. The Gallû ultimately end up taking Inanna's husband, the god-king Dumuzi. However, Simon leaves that entire final chapter of the myth out of his rendition, so I'm not going to recount it here either.

Translations of The Descent of Inanna can be found in many volumes of Sumerian history, mythology, and cultural study, as well as nearly every volume by Samuel Noah Kramer. I used four volumes to piece the above together. They are:

• History Begins at Sumer by Samuel Noah Kramer
• Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth by Samuel Noah Kramer and Diane Wolkstein
• Myths of Enki, the Crafty God by Samuel Noah Kramer and John Maier
• The Sumerians by Samuel Noah Kramer

Moving on, here's a list of what Simon's variation (the Magan text, chapter IV, page 161 in my copy of the Necronomicon) changes:

• Ištar instead of Inanna; implying the Babylonian descent myth, not the Sumerian
• The complete absence of Ninšubur throughout the myth
• Ningišzida, instead of Neti, as the gate-keeper
• Inanna threatens to raise the dead, which is actually only in Ereškigal's power to do
• Inanna threatens to force her way in, as opposed to using trickery
• Ereškigal is fearful of Inanna's approach, as opposed to angry at her
• The sacred me removed are not the same as in the Sumerian version
• The attack by the dreaded Anunnaki never happens in the Sumerian version
• Inanna is not rent, limb from limb, or so viciously dismembered
• The absence of Enlil and Nanna in the rescue effort
• The two sexless beings are air and earth elementals this time
• They do not use clever trickery on Ereškigal to get Inanna gifted to them

And, finally, Simon makes absolutely no mention of the final chapter, where the Gallû return with Inanna and all of Sumer is plagued with the possibility of Inanna's second death if she does not find a replacement in three day's time. The Babylonian descent myth was certainly based on the Sumerian descent myth, but they were not the same. Further, the tale recounted by Simon in the Necronomicon is neither the Babylonian, nor the Sumerian, but one of his own invention that draws a little bit from the Babylonian one, but is otherwise re-shaped to fit his cosmic duality of Ancient Ones versus Elder Gods. Which, if you're familiar with Babylonian myth, you'll recognize as a concept that originates in the Enuma Elish, and not among the Sumerians. The conflict of Apsu, Tiamat, and Kingu, against Marduk, which serves as the foundation for Simon's mythology, has no Sumerian parallel.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe



I would have thought it goes without saying everything is garbled in the Simon Necronomicon version, and i can't see why you went to such trouble to lay on the Kramer when a modern version could have been linked to thus;

Inana's descent to the Nether regions


And here's the Babylonian;


Ishtar's descent to the world below

For one thing, the chapter you're referring to is called "The Sleep of Ishtar", and Ishtar is the Semitic name of Inanna; the Babylonian Inanna, not the Sumerian Inanna

In the Simon version Ninshubur is mentioned whereas in the Babylonian version she isn't, thus it's a composite of the two traditions, you seem unaware how different the Babylonian version was, it's not simply a case of the name change, there was no Babylonian Inanna.

The complete absence of Ninšubur throughout the myth

Ninshubur is present in Simon.


Our Father ENKI
Lord of Magick
Receiving word by NINSHUBUR
ISHTAR's servant NINSHUBUR
He hears of ISHTAR's Sleep
In the House of Death

Inanna threatens to raise the dead, which is actually only in Ereškigal's power to do

That tradition is found in hymns to Istar and in the Babylonian version of descent Ishtar threatens to raise the dead.


28 To bring back her worshipper from the grave,
29 No one [but she] is able.
30 To bring the dead to life, to ..[.] the pit(?)
31 No one [but she] is able.
32 To give long life to him that hears her,
33 No one [but she] is able.
34 [ . ] .... [...] to act without realizing it,
35 No one [but she] is able.
36 Ištar controls the [..]. regulations of land and peoples.
37 She has brought everything that exists to completion,
38 Has perfected the rites, has achieved mastery of all things.


So it's both the Babylonian version and Sumerian that's sourced.

Further, the tale recounted by Simon in the Necronomicon is neither the Babylonian, nor the Sumerian, but one of his own invention that draws a little bit from the Babylonian one, but is otherwise re-shaped to fit his cosmic duality of Ancient Ones versus Elder Gods. Which, if you're familiar with Babylonian myth, you'll recognize as a concept that originates in the Enuma Elish, and not among the Sumerians. The conflict of Apsu, Tiamat, and Kingu, against Marduk, which serves as the foundation for Simon's mythology, has no Sumerian parallel

There is no direct parallel, but there is conflict between Ancient Ones versus Elder Gods of sorts.

Binsbergen/Wiggermann

The opposition of m e / partsu and n a m t a r / shimtu is not just conceptually implied, but turns out to be made explicit in third millennium cosmogony. 40 Herein a cosmic ocean, N a m m a , produces a proto-universe, Heaven and Earth undivided. In a series of stages, all represented by gods, Heaven and Earth produce the Holy Mound (d u k u g ), which in its turn produces E n l i l , ‘Lord Ether’, who by his very existence separates Heaven and Earth. E n l i l , representing the space between Heaven and Earth, the sphere of human and animal life, organises what he finds by his decisions (n a m t a r / shimtu), and thus puts everything into place: the universe becomes a cosmos. Before being permanently subjected, however, the primordial universe (Heaven and Earth) rebels; its representative, a member of the older generation of gods, E n m e sh a r r a , ‘Lord All M e ’, tries to usurp E n l i l ’s prerogative to n a m t a r / shimtu (i.e. prerogative to make decisions). He is defeated by E n l i l and incarcerated in the netherworld for good. The myth can be read as a theistically-slanted argument on two modes of defining order: an immutable cosmological order (m e / partsu) whose unmistakable champion is E n m e sh a r r a , against a protean, individual-centred, volitional, anthropomorphic order, whose champion is E n l i l .

Thus the basis for such a conflict can be considered to have Sumerian foundation.

reply to post by Kantzveldt

i can't see why you went to such trouble to lay on the Kramer when a modern version could have been linked to thus;

Because I have a library of Sumerian-based literature, and because I began my study of Sumer before there was a reliable database of myths available online. Further, if you examined the bibliography for the Sumerian version you linked, you'd find that Kramer is credited (among others) as a source for their translation.

My question to you would be: why would you find it a problem that I use the work of archaeologists who discovered and translated the original cuneiform, instead of solely depending on what is posted on the internet?

As for the Babylonian and Sumerian versions, you'll find some very interesting things:

A time came when the Lady of the Gods, even Ishtar, thought upon the spouse of her youth, upon Tammuz; her heart inclined her to go down into the realm of Irkalla, into the Place of Darkness where Tammuz had gone.

Ishtar goes to Irkalla because of Tammuz (Dumuzi). Which is different from both the Sumerian account and Simon's (who gives no reason for her journey).

"If thou openest not the gate, I will smite upon it; I will shatter the bolt, and beat down the doors! Yea, I will bring away the Dead that are under the rule of thy mistress! I will raise up the Dead so that they will devour the Living, so that the Dead shall outnumber those that live!"

Ishtar says this so Nedo (Neti) will pay attention to her and let her in. Not because she intends to siege Irkalla (which is Simon's recounting) and raise the dead. If you see, she actually plans to steal the dead from Irkalla, not necessarily resurrect them. This is because Irkalla is the warden of the dead. If the dead reach the surface world she is blamed for it, as it is her responsibility to keep a close eye on them.

And hearing of the coming of the Lady of the Gods, Irkalla was angered terribly.

Irkalla (Ereshkigal) is angry, not afraid as Simon says. In the Sumerian version she is angry because Inanna killed her husband and wants her kingdom. In the Babylonian account it is because Inanna threatens to steal away her thralls.

shtar saw the Dead that were there. They were without light; they ate the dust and they fed upon mud; they were clad in feathers and they had wings like birds; they lived in the darkness of night. And seeing their state, Ishtar became horribly afraid. She begged of Irkalla to give her permission to return from the House of Dust

Ishtar becomes fearful for her life, not aggressive against her sister. She essentially realizes the mistake she has made in coming, and boasting of stealing her sister's charges.

Then Irkalla cursed Ishtar; she called upon Namtar, the demon of the plague, to smite the Lady of the Gods. And Namtar went to her and smote her, so that the plague afflicted every member of her body. Ishtar saw the light no more; feathers came upon her; she ate dust and fed upon the mud; she was as one of those whom she had sent down into Irkalla's realm.

No dismemberment, no tearing apart of Ishtar. Just a simple death-curse (which was one of the three Ereshkigal pronounced on her in the Sumerian version).

The Sumerian and Babylonian versions agree on many points. They both disagree with Simon's recounting of the tale and Ishtar's reasons.

In the Simon version Ninshubur is mentioned whereas in the Babylonian version she isn't, thus it's a composite of the two traditions, you seem unaware how different the Babylonian version was, it's not simply a case of the name change, there was no Babylonian Inanna.

I will give you this one. I had miss the single reference to Ninshubur in Simon's account. However, Simon's account greatly downplays Ninshubur's importance in the Sumerian version.

That tradition is found in hymns to Istar and in the Babylonian version of descent Ishtar threatens to raise the dead.

Can you link me to the translation you're using? " [but she] " in scholarly works would indicate an assumed piece of the text that does not actually exist on the physical object. In essence, the text could be saying:

To bring back her worshiper from the grave
No one is able
To bring back the dead to life, to . . [.] the pit(?)
No one is able
To give long life to him that hears her
No one is able

And so on. But, I'd like to see which hymn is being referenced before I make that call. Link please?

There is no direct parallel, but there is conflict between Ancient Ones versus Elder Gods of sorts.

The quoted passage is not a war between Ancient and Elder or "good" and "evil" (as is the battle between Tiamat and Marduk). Enlil and Enmesarra is a conflict of ideals: a changing, malleable universe, versus a structured and unchanging one. It is not so much a war or battle, as it is the advancement of ideas and philosophies: the concept of a static universe being replaced by a dynamic one. Hardly the same conflict Simon presents.

The same type of conflict can be seen in the advancement from An to Inanna as dominion of the Heavens; from Nammu to Enki over dominion of the abyss; in Ninhursag over Urash for dominion over the Earth, and so on. They are hardly the apocalyptic conflict which Tiamat, Kingu and the 11 mighty helper represent in the Enuma Elish. Enmesarra offers no threat to the existence and continuation of the Annunaki; Tiamat wants to destroy them all.

Simon's work is very poorly re-packaged Babylonian mythology.

~ Wandering Scribe

Both you ladies, I assume you're ladies--though clearly, an assumption: anyway, both of you have an astounding knowledge of the myths invovled. But I would like to point out that Simon's version of the Necronomicon is/was "newly" discovered, was it not, supposedly, and became available in the 1970's?

The reason I bring that up, is it becomes obvious, at least to me, reading both of your citations that, as usual, slated for different cultures, so as to keep them divided and concquered, there are at least two different descriptions of the same mythological events. Surely for CTs, in general, it isn't a stretch to see that the Simon Necronomicon was an effort to retell events, drawing from both sources while cleverly "steering," for a more, shall we say, politically correct and expedient representation of mythology, for today, even.

Sorry for butting in, as everyone here is more educted than I am, as to all of the above. But there do seem to be certain associations being made here.....from the Babylonian, to the Sumerian, to the Simon version, which seeks to combine some and throw aspersions, in so doing, even in regards to the Necronomicon, itself....

Therefore, it's a tool, or being used as one. On top of that, loaded with spells rumored to summon the most evil, which if hung around the Babylonian Culture Myth, gets the Sumerians out of it....sort of. There just seems to be some interesting "spnning," going on here, if you will.

What I find incredibly interesting is the three watchers. From my own UFO experience I witnessed three star like UFOs which came down and spoke with me before I was taken.

reply to post by tetra50


The efficacy of the Necronomicon is not something I have ever bothered with; I accept that Simon was writing his own interpretation of the mythology. And, as I said in my first post, his knowledge of the occult and magical practices is formidable (as evidenced by his final volume The Gates of the Necronomicon).

My interest in the Simon Necronomicon was always regarding the influences, and my stance regarding them is that his reiterations were based on the Babylonian myths solely, and not a combination of Babylonian and Sumerian. That is, in essence, all I have been trying to say.

I don't mind the discussion though, Kantzveldt seems very well-read on Babylonian mythology, and it is nice to talk with someone who knows the myths, even if we occasionally disagree on the meanings.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Hey Wandering Scribe: I've read many of your posts, here, and am always interested to read, as you are so knowledgeable, and present the information very well.

I've enjoyed the back and forth between you and Kantzveldt, two extemely knowledgeable and intellectual members....both talented at dissemination of the information, as well.

What I find so interesting is not really so much about the Necronomicon, itself, either--for I find much of the information to be "tricky," for lack of a better word...in that some will tell you it's a way to protect yourself from demonic entities, and others saying it may be couched that way, but is really about summoning them.

But what I find interesting is there is more than one historical and cultural mythos surrounded the same events, period. And then we have a "new version," appearing in modern times.....

That interests me more than anything.
Thanks for replying and reading.
Tetra50

Um, you know the Necronomicon is fiction written by H.P. Lovecraft, right?

reply to post by Leonidas


Um, you know that various authors have attempted to create a "Necronomicon" based off of H.P. Lovecraft's work, right?

You also know that a series of volumes mixing Babylonian and Assyrian mythology with New Age and Neopagan magic exist, right?

They're called the Simon Necronomicon, and there's a whole series of work surrounding them:



That's what is being discussed here.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Kantzveldt


So simply reading it could summon demons? Wouldn't mind reading it for the historical aspect but I got enough demons of my own. Know of any good reads that might do the opposite, as in get rid off demons?

reply to post by Wandering Scribe





I couldn't see the point in laying out the entire premise of Inanna's Descent when i'm obviously going to be familiar with it, may as well just provide a link for those who might not be.

It's obvious that this was a source in the Simon Necronomicon given the Sumerian names involved and direct copying from the text in parts, and it's also obvious this was interwoven with Babylonian elements of Ishtars descent, in fact it's ridiculously obvious.

Find the corpse of INANNA
Find the corpse of ISHTAR our Queen
And sprinkle the Food of Life, Sixty Times
And sprinkle the Water of Life, Sixty Times


The Hymn i quoted from was Hymn to the Queen of Nippur


The same attribute of raising the Dead can be found in the Great Ishtar Prayer, pg 283 here

Brightness, torch of heaven and earth, brilliance of the entire inhabited
world!
Furious one in irresistible onslaught, powerful one in combat!
Firebrand that is ignited against the enemies, contriving disaster for the furious!
Glimmering Ishtar, assembling the assembly!
Goddess of men, goddess / Ishtar of women, whose resolution no one comes
to know!
Wherever you look, the dead lives, the sick arises.
The one who is not right becomes all right (when) seeing your face

Enlil and Enmesarra is a conflict of ideals: a changing, malleable universe, versus a structured and unchanging one. It is not so much a war or battle, as it is the advancement of ideas and philosophies: the concept of a static universe being replaced by a dynamic one. Hardly the same conflict Simon presents.

No that's not it at all, the conflict is based upon essential nature, i wouldn't consider the likes of Lamashtu and the Seven Evil Gallu Demons as motivated by idealism!

N a m t a r / shimtu here is the power to operate the universe of inanimate things and make them change their normal ways, their m e / partsu, or, in other words, to perform magic. The loss of the tablet of destinies did not affect the gods’ ability to act, only their mastery over nature, and another text explains that the possession of the Tablet of Fates involved the ‘secret of Heaven and Earth’

Magic in Mesopotamia

Never try to engage cthulhu in philosophical debate...



reply to post by SomethingsJustNotRight



Not really it depends what you bring to it, i mean if you start killing cats and marking out strange sigils on the floor in their blood you'll be encountering Demons sooner rather than later.

There is no harm whatsoever in the Babylonian and Sumerian source texts the work is developed from, but elements of chaos magick such as the sigils and bizarre utterances are interwoven and the whole thing is a confusion.

The general principle for countering Demonic evil as sourced in the Maqlu text i linked to in the OP was that of fire and light, burning the critters out.

reply to post by tetra50


Well i am high priestess level myself, but my HP is still my mentor.
I am versed in summoning of many pantheon, but I had never paid attention to the necronomicon until maybe 15+ years into my training. I had always fluffed it off as fantasy, but I got interested in the mad Arab and decided to read it all, so I asked her.
At the time, I was only interested in one or two of the deities therein.
I still prefer to work within my comfort zone when it comes to summoning.
I've only used the Necronomicon that one time, and the summoning words were of course the ones with the misprint.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


This is the book I asked about. She said it could be used. It's fraught with misprints

Wandering Scribe
It is not so much a war or battle, as it is the advancement of ideas and philosophies: the concept of a static universe being replaced by a dynamic one.

A highly insightful post...so, we are looking at a document that is an overview of the transition from one philosophical position to a 'new and improved' one? Much like the Homeric Hymn to the Pythian Apollo, introducing the new ruling dynasty of gods perhaps? Then, the Maqlu may possess aspects of antecedence to later books of the dead, a guide and map of the required ritual by which to navigate the underworld to the new life based around those 'gods', as well as the prevention of cross over between the two realms that were held responsible for disease and famine? Or am I holding the wrong end of the stick?