Talk:Baphomet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Baphomet article.
Article policies
Occult Portal
Baphomet is supported by WikiProject Occult in order to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to the occult. Feel free to edit the article attached to this talk page and/or become a participating member.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Baphomet was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: January 8, 2006
Wikiproject Thelema Baphomet is part of WikiProject Thelema, an attempt to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to Thelema. You are invited to participate by editing the article or by joining the Thelema WikiProject as a participating member.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] atbash cipher

About the Atbash cipher, I am a Hebrew speaker (and translator). While I won't argue with Schonfeld, there is definitely something missing there. I am not familiar with the word at all. Danny

I think that is common with Christian mystics' use of Hebrew, is it not? Anyhow, I just transliterated what was there (Baphomet to BPhMT) and worked out the Atbash for it according to the description of Atbash. It comes out ShVYA, which is what "some people" (that famous Wikipedia phrase) interpret as "Sophia". --FOo


The correct hebrew spelling of the supposed word 'sophia' is שופיא and the atbash form of that is בפעמת or Baf'omet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiramabi (talk • contribs) November 2003 (UTC)

That is correct. What Danny needs to realize is that the word "bafomet" is not Hebrew at all. The mysticism about all of it is explained quite succinctly and in detail here: http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-baphomet.html

The word Bahu, however, is Hebrew. This is explained in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tani (talk • contribs) June 2005 (UTC)

Actually:
  1. Both Chirabami and the mentioned webpage claim that atbash translates שופיא to בפעמת. This is not correct, as explained below.
  2. The webpage mentioned above is not at all "succinct"; and several details there are either missing or wrong. Unfortunately that page has neither an "edit" nor a "discussion" button...
Austrian 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baf'omet is not Sofia

It is true that the atbash cipher translates

bfomt = בפומת

into

$ofia = שופיא

(here I use "$" for the hebrew letter Sin, which can be pronounced "s" or "sh").

However,

  1. In the Hebrew version of "Baphomet", the middle letter is an Ayin, not Waw: בפעמת, not בפומת. A better latin transliteration would be baph`omet. (At least this is what Google tells me: 145 results for version with Waw, only 15 of them not mentioning "sophia", and 300 results for the version with Ayin, among them the Wikipedia version of origin belief.)
  2. In the customary Hebrew transliteration of "Sophia", the first letter is a Samekh (ס), not Shin (ש); and the last letter is (as in most female words ending in -a) heh ( ה), not aleph (א): It is סופיה, not שופיא. sofih, not $ofia.
(Try searching google for "שופיא", or better yet: "שופיא -baphomet"; there are almost no results. Or check out the Hebrew article for the capital of Bulgaria he:סופיה. The Hebrew Wikipedia has articles about various people called Sofia, such as Sophia Loren or Sofia Coppola, all of them are spelled with Samekh and Heh.)

Austrian 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

in response to your points above:
  1. As mentioned in someone's comment above, Baphomet is not known to be a Hebrew word. Therefore there is no "right" way to transliterate it in Hebrew.
  2. Sophia is not a Hebrew word either, but a Greek word. Again, it could be transliterated however you want.
This does rather beg the question of why someone would use the Hebrew Atbash cypher for two non-Hebrew words, but stranger things have happened. I would guess the only reason for using the Hebrew Atbash cypher is because it produces this interesting association of words. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is correct that neither "Sophia" nor (as far as I know) "Baphomet" are Hebrew. Still I believe that there can be a "right" way of transliteration; in any case I only claimed that neither of the two words בפומת and שופיא is a customary transliteration. Austrian 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew

check 84.94.27.22's tinkering with Hebrew characters, someone who knows what they are talking about ;) --1pezguy 05:59, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Goat of Mendes

I thought that picture of the seated man-goat was, in fact, the Goat of Mendes, a representation of polarity (essentially a Western equivalent to the yin yang).

[edit] Re: Goat of Mendes

There are a number of images of Baphomet taken from Templar coffers at About's Gnostic/Hermetic Images - Baphomet page . Each likeness has a consistent theme of polarity. Interesting, no? Alt-o 10:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baphomet and Mahomet; etymologies and vandalism issues

Vandals have recently taken to repeatedly removing the link of the name "Baphomet" to "Mahomet," a widely attested Latin form of the name of the Prophet Muhammad; and Idries Shah's proposed Arabic etymology. They are claimed to be "derogatory to Islam and its prophet."

Even if they are, bear in mind that this is an etymology for a Crusader-era word, for a supposed idol that was meant to be derogatory to someone or another.

It remains the case that the "Mahomet" etymology is the most obvious etymology, the one most lexicographers would accept, makes no pretension that the name somehow conceals some secret learning, and ties in directly with the allegations being made (that the Templars were secretly in league with Islam). Idries Shah, I cheerfully admit, is a dodgy character, but it remains the case that his proposed etymology appeared in print in a book he wrote, albeit under his goofy pseudonym "Arkon Daraul."

If you honestly imagine that the way these facts are reported should be reworded, I'd be happy to hear proposals to reword them. However, I have asked in the interim that a version of the page containing the etymologies be protected; and I will report anyone who simply deletes them with this claim as a vandal. Smerdis of Tlön 20:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Baphomet and Mahomet; etymologies and vandalism issues Your claim that Templars were in leagues with Muslims and that Baphomet is a distorted form of the word Mahomet is highly disputable and should not a part of Wikipadeia's literature. I would request you not to link the Crusade-era misinformation with Islam or its Prophet. If you really want to use the controversial literature, then the webpage should carry a disclaimer that the contents of the website are controversial and should not be taken for fact.

Regarding the "mahomet" etymology, no one is saying the Templars were in league with Islam. I interpreted the etymology (as written) to mean the Templars submitted to the inquisition by using a bastardization of a word from a religion they were ignorant of. The way it is written is open to interpretation on the reader's part, allowing the reader to decide how that is or is not a possibility. Idries Shah's etymology is his own and clearly stated as such, and is not endorsed, only mentioned. I omitted the "mahomet" etymology but reverted the "Abufihamat" etymology. I see no logical reason for Shah's to be controversial. JustSomeKid
The Baphomet/Mahomet etymology appears in most standard reference books. Reword it if you think it needs rewording, but it definitely should stay. I have restored it, and added a web-link to an online edition of a 1910 Catholic ditionary in which it appears. While I was at it, I also added an ISBN to the Idries Shah "Arkon Daraul" book which proposes his etymology. I doubt that the vandals will bother looking at any reference, though, or come up with any constructive suggestions. Smerdis of Tlön 19:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The website referenced points to a Catholic propoganda webpage and the fairness of its content are questionable. It is a historically known fact that during the centuries of Crusades, Islam was demonized in Europe by the mideaval European scholars with a bigoted intent of discrediting Islam. The lierature originating from Europe during this period was full of venom and misinformation about Islam and its Prophet. To use this literature as a source of knowledge & factual truth is doing injustice not only to Islam but also the readers of Wikipedia. I will urge the Moderators/Administrators to publish a disclaimer stating that the contents of this webpage are controversial to say the least. Readers with an ulterior motive should be discouraged from posting false and malicious information on Wikipedia. It is really interesting to know how myths could be posted on Wikipedia as facts by some learned users. Please visit the follwoing website that again illustrates the intellectual level of these postings: http://www.templarhistory.com/shah.html (User: Straight, 07/25/2005)
How is Islam slandered by what is clearly an example of European ignorance, if they are true? The etymologies are clearly marked as possibilities, and not endorsed. Whether you like those possibilities is your own taste, but there is no reason to omit them. JustSomeKid
. . .During the centuries of Crusades, Islam was demonized in Europe by the mideaval European scholars with a bigoted intent of discrediting Islam. The lierature originating from Europe during this period was full of venom and misinformation about Islam and its Prophet. No argument from me here about any of this. If this is so, it really isn't surprising to find that the origin of the name "Baphomet" arose from one more such incident. Frankly, what you are saying makes this purported etymology more rather than less believable. It remains an attested fact that this is one source that has been pointed out. Smerdis of Tlön 03:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The new rewrite was good, but highly redundant. I truncated it to: A slanderous deformation of the Latinised "Mahomet", a medieval Latin rendering of Muhammad (مُحَمَد), the name of the prophet of Islam. [1] During the era of the Crusades, the European literature contained deliberate misinformation and distortions against Islam and its prophet, making it equivalent to "propaganda" warfare. It is therefore possible that the origin of the name "Baphomet" arose from one more such incident. The Knights Templar fought among Muslims, but the very strong proscription of idolatry in Islam makes a Muslim source for the modern term doubtful. Thoughts? JustSomeKid
Not bad, although I do think the parallel with termagant is worth preserving. The point should be made that Europeans of the period equated Muslims with "pagans," portrayed them worshipping Muhammad as a god, and invented fictional deities that they were imagined to worship. A culture where such tales circulated was also capable of inventing the god "Baphomet" in a politically motivated inquisition involving a crusader order with Middle Eastern contacts. Smerdis of Tlön 04:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The wording of this article was proposing that the name "Baphomet" was an attempt to slander Islam, but didn't even hint at an attempt to slander the Templars. I find this very unlikely. Firstly, the muslims were already demonised in European eyes, and thought to engage in all kinds of devil worship. There was nothing to be gained by adding the minor detail that their prophet was idolised as some form of statue. Secondly, this name was first mentioned during the Templar trials, wasn't it, when it seems the church was bringing charges against the Templars? Isn't it the Templars who are the most likely target of any attempt at slander? I'm sure whoever invented such slander wouldn't have cared if both Templars and Muslims were tarred by the same brush, but in this case, I don't think the principal intended victims were the Muslims, but the Templars! Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The claimed etymology of "Baphomet" deriving from "Mahomet" is just plain silly. I don't care how many university lexicographers think it makes sense, this ridiculous hypothesis can easily be demolished and therefore has no place in Wikipedia.

Firtly, remember that the claim against the Templars was very specific - worship of an IDOL which they called BAPHOMET. Islam expressly forbids idol worship, especially one which represents the prophet Muhammad. If we suppose that the Templars had in fact adopted some beliefs/practices from Islam, there is no way they be worshipping an idol.G

Without trying too hard, you can distort the word to just about whatever you want, depending on what theory you are trying to promote. I therefore propose that the sin of the Templars was in fact an obsession with personal hygiene (in a time when most Europeans were filthy), and that the word derives from "bath mat". Logicman1966 09:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand. If somebody else has written about it, it can be reported as fact. Wikipedia standard is verifiability, not truth. In any case, it is true that such and such scholars make such and such argument. You are welcome to add opposing other verifiable opinions as well, just as long as you can cite a reliable source for them. IPSOS (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Key of Solomon

The long historical text contains the passage:

When excavating beneath the temple, the knights discovered gold and ancient relics, and also many scrolls. Putting two and two together, it appears they also found scrolls containing knowledge that eventually found its way into grimiores instructing on how to summon Demons using abusive methods- "The Key of Solomon." Shortly thereafter, magnificent cathedrals and other buildings sprung up all over Europe. Most of the Goetic Demons are known for their expertise in architecture and there are legends claiming many bridges and buildings in Europe were built by Satan and his Demons.

Anyone have a reference for this? Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That contains one fallacy (post hoc ergo prompter hoc), one falsehood (to my knowledge, no one knows what they found excavating the temple), something that is probably untrue (most Goetic demons knowing about architecture), and one irrelevance (citing legends and rumors as evidence). Besides, it sounds a bit like original research. I'd try to find something to corroborate it, but I'm stuck on dial-up right now. JustSomeKid

[edit] Fertility cult?

Baphomet also known in the ancient world as a pagan fertility god demonized and turned into satan by the church, allthough freemasonary readily admits baphomet is indeed a fertility god. Baphomet also takes on a human form in some depictions rather than half human and half beast. In more popular beliefs i.e. satanism baphomet is worshipped as satan.

Please find me a reference, preferably an original source, for the notions that the name Baphomet existed in the ancient world, or that Freemasons actually, as opposed to false claims such as the Taxil hoax, worshipped Baphomet as a fertility god. Smerdis of Tlön 14:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Templar Connection

Although it is true that Baphomet was mentioned in the Templar confessions, it is recognized by many conventional historians/linguists to be an Old French bastardization of Mohammed, and was not in fact linked to the idols also mentioned in their confessions - see Malcolm Barber, "The New Knighthood." It is also prudent to point out that it was Philip the Fair of France who nominally used the Inquisition, but it was in fact an usurpation of Pope Clement V's authority. After nullifying the French process, Pope Clement V opened two papal proceedings: a trial in the dioceses of Europe to try individual knights (which almost universally found them innocent, save in France) and a general papal inquiry to try the Order as a whole. The general papal inquiry found that although there had been individual abuses, the Order as a whole had not supported or endorsed heretical practices, and in fact supported the maintanance of the Order. But public opinion was so strongly turned against the Order by this time that Clement V suppressed the order (through a Papal Bull - ie, he did not condemn the order, but simply disbanded it on the same authority he had used to sanction it). For a brief summary, one may visit an older reference at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm, or for a more in-depth view again turn to Malcolm Barber's texts on the matter.

Care must be used in any reference to the Knights Templar to distinguish between accepted history and conjectural history - unfortunately, many of the details in this article are of the latter. DonaNobisPacem 06:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in.. but i was surfing and noticed the baphomet pic is the same as the pic for the horned god

I have basically copied over the trial details as I had them listed on Talk:Knights Templar....
I shall list the facts of the trial, as I have researched them, and we can examine the issue point by point if necessary. My sources are, unless otherwise stated, Malcolm Barber's "The New Knighthood," Peter Partner's "Murdered Magicians," and the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. Barber was the primary reference; when either Partner or the Encyclopedia were used as reference, I checked the for conflict with Barber's book; if there was conflict, I defaulted to Barber's account.
  • On Friday Oct 13, 1307, Philip IV orders the arrest of the Templars in France (most of whom were elderly, infirm, or serving brothers); this has been planned for a few months. The most likely motivation is desiring the wealth of the Order, but paired with a belief in the Order's heretical practices. The latter is given weight by the earlier expulsion of the Jews (he seized their wealth, but also believed they were desecrating the host), and his earlier actions against Pope Boniface VIII and Guichard, Bishop of Troyes; he was motivated by the belief the pope and the bishop were heretics. He was most likely under the influence of William of Nogaret (excommunicated for the kidnapping of Pope Boniface VIII) and other ministers, as well as French nobility who wanted to gain Templar lands and lessen Church authority. The common strand that runs through all of these events is Philip IV’s belief that he was the saviour of the “true Christianity of the sacred realm of France” from the heretical and diabolical actions of Boniface VIII, Guichard, the Jews, and lastly the Templars.
  • The justification for the trial was given as the "revelations" of a few members who had lost their habit. The charges included spitting, trampling, or urinating on the cross; while naked, being kissed obscenely by the receptor on the lips, navel, and base of the spine; heresy and worship of idols; institutionalized homosexuality; and also accusations of contempt of the Holy Mass and denial of the sacraments
  • Royal officials, acting nominally under the Inquisition but in reality under the direction of the French crown, began an investigation using torture. In one month of investigations, only 4 of 138 members denied the charges. Including those who confessed were Jacques de Molay, Hugh of Pairaud, the Visitor of the Temple in the West, and Geoffrey of Charney, the Preceptor of Normandy. Within weeks of their arrests Templars were brought into the public to confess to their crimes. The credibility of the trials is (obviously) dubious, as is made obvious by the confessions of knights such as John of Tour (read the book for more details :) )
  • Objecting to the disregard of his authority, Clement annulled the proceedings, and suspended the powers of the French bishops and their inquisitors. But bowing to public (that part is important) and royal pressure, Clement eventually ordered a general arrest of Templars outside of France. He then started an investigation: within a month, several leaders recanted their testimonies; the pope stopped proceedings, and the trial stagnated for six months.
  • In June 1308, not too pleased with how things were going, Philip arranged for 72 carefully selected Knights to give testimony before the Pope at Poitier. The Pope was sufficiently worried by their testimony to begin a two-part investigation: one in individual dioceses, to determine the guilt of the individual members of the order, and the other a papal investigation to determine the guilt of the Order as a whole. These proceeded at a rather slow pace, further aggravating Philip.
  • In February 1310, thirty-two Templars led by Peter of Bologna, the procurator of the Order for the papacy, and Renaud of Provins, mounted an effective defence of the order. Philip IV then arranged for fifty-four Templars who had recanted their earlier admission of guilt to be handed over to secular authorities and burned as relapsed heretics in dioceses where the bishops largely owed their position to the patronage of the king. After this, Templars sent before the papal commission were carefully selected by French authorities to be those who had already confessed to heresy in the French proceedings (as evidenced by Templars from the Diocese of Cleremont.
  • Despite the poor defense of the Order, when the papal commission ended its proceedings on June 5, 1311, it found no evidence that the Order itself held heretical doctrines, or used a "secret rule" apart from the Latin and French rules. On October 16, 1311, at the General Council of Vienne held in Dauphiné, the council voted for the maintanence of the Order. At this time, although not all diocesan processes had finished, aside from a few convictions in Italy and the convictions in France, virtually no Templars were convicted of heresy. In France, the initial confessions, though the process had been annulled, were considered to be established fact; and various sentences of imprisonment were handed out to those considered relapsed or impenitent. No further Knights were burned, other than Molay and one other upper official.
  • On March 22, 1312, Clement V promulgated the bull Vox in excelsis in which he stated that although there was not sufficient reason to condemn the Order, for the common good, the hatred of the Order by Philip IV, the scandal brought about by their trial, and the likely dilapidation of the Order that was likely to result from the trial, the Order was to be suppressed by the pope’s authority over it. It is important to note it was not condemned by the Church.
  • This was followed by the bull Ad Providum on May 2, 1312, which granted all of the Order's lands and wealth to the Hospitallers so that its original purpose could be met. Philip held onto some lands until 1318, and in England the crown and nobility held a great deal until 1338; in many areas of Europe (including England), the land was never given over to the Hospitaller Order, instead taken over by nobility and monarchs in an attempt to lessen the influence of the Church and its Orders. Of the knights who had not admitted to the charges, against those whom nothing had been found, or those who had admitted but reconciled to the Church, some joined the Hospitallers (even staying in the same Templar houses); others joined Augustinian or Cistercian houses; and still others returned to secular life with pension. In Portugal and Aragon, the Holy See granted the properties to two new Orders, the Order of Christ and the Order of Montessa respectively, made up largely of Templars in those kingdoms. In the same bull, he urged those who had pleaded guilty be treated “according to the rigours of justice, tempered by a generous mercy.”
  • Molay and his first three dignitaries were found guilty as individuals by the papal commission. They were brought into public to recant of their crimes, after which they were to be imprisoned for life; Molay and Geoffrey of Charney instead denied the charges. Molay announced the innocence of the Order, and offered his life for his false testimony of heresy. Both were seized by French secular authorities as relapsed heretics and burned before the royal palace in 1314. Interestingly enough, there is evidence that the cardinals of the papal commission at one point in 1308 falsified his testimony, saying he plead guilty when he had in reality plead innocent in that appearance, to prevent him from being burned at by French authorities as a relapsed heretic (many in the Order and the Church heirarchy thought the Order would be found innocent, and resume its prior position when the papal commission ended).
There it is in a nutshell - yes, Clement bowed to secular authority and public pressure in France to have the trial take place, but he didn't exactly benefit from the proceedings; in fact, the Church lost influence in many areas due to secular nobility retaining Templar lands and the scandal caused by the trial. Clement also attempted to keep the lands out of Philip's hands, hardly indicating a willing co-operation; in fact, Clement had been undergoing a process of trying to remove clergy from secular influence, particularly in France, prior to the trial. His suspension of bishops and inquisitors' rights after the suspension of the initial French process confirms this fact. Most historians agree - although Clement was weak in his decisions, the motivation for the trial was entirely Philip's, in both his belief in the heresy of the Order, and his desire to obtain their wealth.

[edit] Delisted GA

I'm delisting this article from GA status because it fails to cite its references. In addition, the article's lead is a bit too short. AndyZ 15:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of "Levi's interpretation"

Just a query regarding this section: it mentions that Harpocrates was not associated with debauch or lust, which seems to imply that Levi's Baphomet was. Where does this idea come from? Fuzzypeg 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also there is a contradiction in the article. In 'Eliphas Levi & Baphomet' it is stated that "Lévi considered the Baphomet to be a depiction of the absolute in symbolic form" and then later in 'Baphomet in popular culture that "[Baphomet] is usually depicted as a demon per Lévi's interpretation". Levi did not consider Baphomet to be a demon but a representation of a concept, although inspiration for the form was taken from the Tarot De Marseille's Devil.

[edit] Removed text

The following text has been removed here:

"...the he-goat worshipped in the city of Mendes in Ancient Egypt. It is unclear whether the Ancient Egyptian women had intercourse with the goat during religious rites for fertility, but the Catholic Church claimed this and it is possible that this is where the notion that the Devil had intercourse with his witches came from. The goat (sometimes a ram was used) was the master of fertility and was celebrated as “copulator in Anep and inseminator in the district of Mendes,” where women were blessed with children. During rituals, women danced naked before the image. The Order of Nine Angles claims another perspective to Baphomet."

The animal venerated in Mendes was a ram not a goat. The "Catholic Church" made no such claim in connection with the ram deity Banebdjed, which is the actual historic deity of Mendes. “Copulator in Anep and inseminator in the district of Mendes,” is Levi's steamy phrase, I believe; it has no historical basis. "Women dancing naked before the image" yada yada yada —the same Second Empire culture that gave us Saint-Saens' Samson and Dalila and Flaubert's Salammbô— good entertainment but not good ethnographic history eh. This stuff does Wikipedia no good: copied from here, it's all over the Web. --Wetman 20:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "Albion" etc

I moved this unsourced "quotation" here: "The name of Baphomet is regarded by traditional Satanists as meaning "the mistress (or mother) of blood" - the (Satanic) Mistress who sometimes washes in the blood of her foes and whose hands are thereby stained. Allegedly, 7,000 years ago a civilization known as Albion had various rites associated with a Dark Goddess who was known as "Baphomet"." Allegedly indeed. --Wetman 01:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Baphomet=Bahamut

hey do you think there could be a possibilty of bahamut (a dragon sometimes goat headed dependind on the depiction)because Bahamut is considered a occult being. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.188.165.2 (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I completly agree with this concept. They are the same and the pronounciation is like that of Bahamut, even though it is spelled with a (ph). There are a few words in which ph creates a bizare but similar effect.

- The article on Bahamut seems to disagree, saying it is based off of 'behemoth'. Also, in what representation aside from popular culture has Bahamut been represented as a dragon? Various google searches all lead primarily (aside from final fantasy sites, of course) to varying accounts of the 'unfathomably massive fish' story, which makes up much of the current wiki article. And, rather than a goat head, it's most often a hippopotamus or elephant head. Sorry, I just don't see the connection here. 67.160.142.194 (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Urrr, whether or not they could be connected, unless some reliable author makes this connection, the theory has no place in Wikipedia. See the policy on original research. Original theories like this are better discussed elsewhere. Fuzzypeg★ 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval texts

I've made a Notes section, and injected some references. Can we get better text on the Templars, to replace what I've commented out? So, Eliphal Lévi seems to have provided an "etymology" for Littré's Dictionnaire de la langue française! Cheeky, eh! The aricle needs some instances of "Baphomet" in contemporaneous material connected to the Templar trials: is there anything in one of the more serious historical studies of the Templar trials? Or is "Baphomet" simply a 19th-century Gothic Revival phantom? --Wetman 15:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Provenance

I'd like to remove the phrase "uncertain provenance" from the lead of this article. The origin of the name of Baphomet has been reliably linked to the Templar inquisitions, and the image has been reliably sourced to Levi in the 19th century. I know this may be a controversial change though, so I wanted to check here at talk first. The article used to say "uncertain provenance" before the link to the Inquisition transcripts was confirmed. I was the one that did the research into Templar works (I've pushed the Knights Templar article to FA status) and added that reference, but I didn't remove the "uncertain" phrase. I'd like to fix that now. Do other editors agree with the change? --Elonka 21:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If contemporaneous documents do employ "Baphomet", then "uncertain provenance" is unwarranted. A quote from a transcript (they must be published even in populariztions) would clinch it; the current unreassuring reference is merely to generic "transcriptions".--Wetman 22:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It's been referred to in multiple modern documentaries, plus by academic Malcolm Barber, who is the current undisputed authority when it comes to the Knights Templar. If you want, I can dig up an exact quote from his book The New Knighthood. --Elonka 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
(followup) Here's a quote from Peter Partner's book "The Knights Templar and their Myth", page 34: "In the trial of the Templars one of their main charges was their supposed worship of a heathen idol-head known as a 'Baphomet' ('Baphomet' = Mahomet = Muhammad)." He also quotes from "a poem written in a Provencal dialect by a troubadour who is thought to have been a Templar", referring to some battles in 1265 that were not going well for the Crusaders: "And daily they impose new defeats on us: for God, who used to watch on our behalf, is now asleep, and Muhammad [Bafometz] puts forth his power to support the Sultan." There are other quotes from the book as well, where the author explains that "Baphomet" was etymologically equivalent to the Old French version of the word Muhammad. --Elonka 21:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
That's the kind of stuff the article needs, IMO: do edit it in, with your references.--Wetman 02:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upon the deleted anagrams of Baphomet

Alas, following this avenue, as richly allusive and meaningless as a POEM BATH, I find the paranoid hidden alarm of occultists in the face of public oppression — "PA! THE MOB!" — as well as the ideal place for such Baphomet speckle-ations, a HEMP BOAT. Please, can we erect a cairn to this nonsense, a TOMB HEAP? --Wetman 06:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LeoTaxilmysteres.jpg

Image:LeoTaxilmysteres.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The image description page says "Book cover, pre- 1897". What part of that is not understood?--Wetman (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viollet-le-Duc's "gargoyles" are irrelevant

I removed the following text that was tacked onto a statement about similarities between Levi's Baphomet image and grotesques on Templar churches:

, or, more specifically, to Viollet-le-Duc's vivid gargoyles that were added to Notre Dame de Paris about the same time as Lévi's illustration.

Actually, Viollet-le-Duc's buildings are not "specific" instances of Templar churches, so that was misleading; also, I see no reason for mentioning these grotesques (they're not technically gargoyles) when they have only the vaguest similarity to Levi's drawing (they have horns, big deal), and the grotesques on Templar churches are much closer, and are the clear inspiration (along with the "Devil" tarot card) of Levi's image.

Check out these examples, for instance, and compare them with this chimera of Viollet-le-Duc:

I've found a few more of Viollet-le-Duc's "gargoyles" by doing a google image search, and none of them look much like Levi's drawing. The statement I removed was trying to suggest connections that are spurious. Fuzzypeg★ 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baphomet and the Shroud of Turin

I think it's very plausible that the Baphomet was the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud turned up in the ownership of a descendant of the Templars. The Templars were accused of worshipping a head. The Templars had taken an relic from the sack of Constantinople in 1204 that was called the Image of Edessa. It was supposed to be an image of the head of Jesus. There are quotations from Templars that the Image of Edessa is not just of a head but of a whole body. The Image of Edessa was a cloth of a whole body image folded to just show the head because it was considered indecent to show the whole body. By the way, that was the same reason given by the King of France why the Shroud of Turin should not be exhibited. The Baphomet was probably the Image of Edessa which was in turn the Shroud of Turin. Barney Hill (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

All of this is possible, but Wikipedia articles can only include notable theories that appear in published works. Theories must be attributed to a notable author or a reliable source. Otherwise such material is regarded as original research and removed. Fuzzypeg★ 07:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ian Wilson claimed that the 'head' of the Templars was the Shroud of Turin, but he never once called the 'head' Baphomet. Ian Wilson, The Turin Shroud (Victor Gollancz Ltd; 1978 ISBN 0 575 02483 6). Wfgh66 (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Gnostic Heads and Severed Idols

He did not realise that Gnostics did not have idols.

I have removed this sentence as it is both uncited and is historically incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SerpentOfDarkness (talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed pop culture section

A large quantity of the pop culture section was just repeating the disambiguation page. We need to avoid building a trivia section on this page, or creating endless lists of popular representations of the figure. The only time such information would be warranted in an article like this is if that pop reference has significantly changed the common understanding of who or what Baphomet is. And I can't think of any representations that do this.

So, lets rely on the disambiguation page, and if there's some pop culture mention that doesn't warrant its own devoted article, then we can probably safely assume it's under the notability threshold for Wikipedia. I'm not even convinced of the notability of the various song titles that are listed in Baphomet (disambiguation), but it's better having them there than here... Fuzzypeg★ 21:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)