Talk:Jahbulon

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 January 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

I am reluctant to edit this as I am new to Wikipedia and do not yet fully feel comfortable with my editing skills. So perhaps others will edit for me? Here are my comments -

• The Title may incorrect. The spelling "Jahbulon" may be in error... From my understanding it should be "Jahbalon".
  • They are variants, i.e. Jahbalon Jahbelon Jahbolon Jehbalon Jehbulon Jehbolon Jahbulaum. Not to say which is most common, I don't know for sure, but it appears to be the one used here.Grye

I will take the rest sentence by sentince...

Jahbulon is alleged to be a name of God which was used among Freemasons.

• Not true. It is a word that is used by Freemasons of the Royal Arch Degree (Part of the York Rite) to ""represent"" the name of God.

It probably arose as a mixture of Jah (a Hebrew name of God) and Zebulon (a son of Jacob)".

• This is the first I have heard of this... Do we have a source for this?
  • Not I, & I looked... Grye

Among the Freemasons it is explained as being a combination of:-

Jah - bul, (a form of Baal.) - on, (explained as a name of the Egyptian god Osiris). This name arose by misunderstanding Genesis 46:20 (Bible): ".. Potiphera priest of On ...", where On is a version of the Ancient Egyptian name of the city of Heliopolis. Among Freemasons this name should only be pronounced with certain rituals.

• All true... but perhaps it should be clear that this ritual concerns Masons of the Royal Arch Degree.
  • Did so. izzit OK? Grye

This name escaping from Freemason secrecy into public knowledge, caused a quantity of doctrinal controversy between Freemasons and orthodox Christians.

• I would not use the word "escaping", but otherswise I would agree with this statement

The order in which this word was used has now changed its secret word to conform to the orthodox Judaeo-Christian tradition.

• Nope... it is still used by Royal Arch Masons today.

Blueboar 19:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Be Bold. As soon as you can find something to cite, go ahead and make your changes. Without a citation, though, we're just in a case of he-said-he-said.--SarekOfVulcan 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Unforunately, that is one of the main problems with this Article. It discusses an obsure word that is used in a somewhat obscure ritual. The only citation I could give is that very ritual - which is not a truly citable source (ie it not published, AFAIK). Even if I could find that ritual published so I could cite it, I would have personal problems with doing so ... being a Mason, I feel that I am under an obligation not to discuss it in context. In fact, the only reason I feel free to discuss it in abstract, is that it is already the subject of an article. But, since it IS already the subject of an article, I would at least like to see that the information the article gives is correct. As I grow more conversant in editing, I may go back and edit this so it conforms to my comments. Blueboar 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

OK... I have found several possible citation sites (most of these copy or quote from Duncan's Masonic Monitor of 1866). If I can find them, I am sure most non-Royal Arch Masons can do so as well. As I said before... I have a personal problem with simply quoting the ritual and do not feel comfortable updating this myself. But I would like it updated and have no problem with someone else doing so. Blueboar 21:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is sophistry, but you could say "Duncan's Masonic Monitor says that..." without actually taking a position on it yourself. Technically.--SarekOfVulcan 06:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sarek I don't think sophistry is the right word at all. he would simply be citing Duncan's Masonic Monitor [or any other text]. There's no back-handedness at all to that. Maybe I just don't see something? it is late here...Grye 08:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Sarek and Grye... As I said, my hesitation is based on my personal interpretation of my obligations. I will wrestle with that, and if I can come up with a verson of this Article that meets that interpretation, I will try editing it. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to edit it, please go right ahead. 'Nuff said. Blueboar 13:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

UGLE use of Jahbulon

"This "word" is not in use within UGLE Freemasonry."

Skull 'n' Femurs, If UGLE Masonry does or not, let's post it here, no? If we post it on the main page, we might as well claim the same for PH, Co-Masonry, etc... If agreed, delete this my last post & just post your original comment here?

Or not... Grye

Grye, the edit history says the above was you - although you did not sign it. "This "word" is not in use within UGLE Freemasonry", is a fact not a claim. Anyway see an answer at "Necessity of the article", below. Skull 'n' Femurs 17:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I meant to sign it I used ``` on accident. Will read ahead for the rest Grye

Necessity of the article

I'm a little concerned with this, not because it's giving away "secrets", but because of the very important question "Is this necessary?" First off, this article will never be more than a stub because of its content; there's no way to make this useful, or very much longer. Furthermore, it sets a precedent to "Why don't we just explain everything?" which kind of defeats the purpose, which is, rather than "to keep inviolate the secrets of Masonry" (though that is an issue as well) is "to not ruin things for people who don't know about it yet." You don't see WP articles explaining the Eagle Scout handshake, do you? It's because that is benign, and Freemasonry supposedly is not, but I probably don't need to illustrate the irony of Pat Robrtson and his comments here. Frankly, I think we need t just toss this article completely, because it's not possible to get it up to standard. MSJapan 14:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

MSJapan. Now Grye edited out my addition, "This "word" is not in use within UGLE Freemasonry”. My addition was very carefully worded. I’m guessing that you know how this relates to, “ This name escaping from Freemason secrecy into public knowledge, caused a quantity of doctrinal controversy between Freemasons and orthodox Christians.” Skull 'n' Femurs 17:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The sentence, “ This name escaping from Freemason secrecy into public knowledge, caused a quantity of doctrinal controversy between Freemasons and orthodox Christians.”, is misleading from my POV and should be more like, “This ritual word being brought to the notice of the uninitiated has caused a quantity of controversy between Freemasons of various jurisdictions and some, anti-Masonic, Christians.” Skull 'n' Femurs 17:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

On balance, I would not necessarily subscribe to the taxonomy or etymology of the “word” or the “parts” as described. You may or may not want to comment. Since, "This "word" is not in use within UGLE Freemasonry”, my jurisdiction – it is not a “secret” for me – but I support your “sage” comments MSJapan. The article is a flawed stub. It could be added to the “York Rite”, (another flawed article), left here and edited somewhat, or just removed root and branch. I must add that it is not my intention to hunt down the work of Grye just for the sake of it. Removing the article would entail removing ALL comments about the “word” as well, for example at Freemasonry and York Rite would it not? Skull 'n' Femurs 17:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"This "word" is not in use within Blue Lodge Freemasonry." SarekOfVulcan I do not know if this is true or not, I'm not a member or expert in other juristictions, and "Craft" not "Blue Lodge" is used in my juristiction anyway. UGLE Freemasonry directly means "Craft" and HRA in that juristiction - and indirectly all English "Orders", since all these have English Craft Masons as members. I'm a small "o" orthodox Christian, so the that sentence there is simply wrong. Skull 'n' Femurs 20:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This "word" is said to be used in a Rite system called York Rite. I cannot confirm, that as true or faulse. The "system" is not in England. None of the "Orders" in England are systemised in this way, but any found as both "York" and as "individual" do not use the "word" here, as the "word" is not in use within England, full stop. With my hand on the VSL this is correct. Any "secret" words used in any of my rituals will be subject to removal without notice, if I find them on Wiki. That is my POV. As a side issue, as far as I know, Junior boy and girl "Orders" or "Prince Hall" are not found in England (outside of US Military bases) either. Well, now I'm going to change the orthodox Christian stuff. Sorry, missed the tildes then. Note all this is said in good faith and a happy face -see :) Skull 'n' Femurs 22:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Freemasons of various jurisdictions and some Christians". This edit ok, oh great Sage-o-da-East. (lol) :) Skull 'n' Femurs 22:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

But: This being a definition of a word. Period. How about we move this to wiktionary:Jahbulon?

• I agree it is definitely not a subject for encyclopediac explanation, irregardless of where one's from & it being used there or no;
• The word does exist, and (some) of the uninitiated world knows about it, + it is a known issue here, so not really delete, maybe. I dunno, I'm not going to cry if it disappears tho.
• It being in Wiktionary means: No opinions; No comments; Just "This is the word, this is the ent.; next?"

P.S. Y'all know I'm not the source of this article in the first place right? Anyway, I agree also with the questionability the article at all, & again I didn't start this page, but it's here, so if it's going to be here, then it needs to be more correct than not. & removing it brings up the "merciless editing by Freemasons" issue. As far as I know, executive decisions of Wiki- are not all in Freemason's hands, so we can't really just say "delete that and that and that...." Grye 00:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned about something Skull 'n' Femurs said above...

"Any "secret" words used in any of my rituals will be subject to removal without notice, if I find them on Wiki."

While I understand this attitude, I can not accept it. Most (if not all) of our so called "secret" words have been exposed multiple times through the years, and are part of the public record. Indeed, at least one is part of common English usage. Just because we Masons still treat our Words as being "secret", does not make them so for non-Masons. Our obligations require us to not write them ... but they say nothing about our preventing others from doing so.

That said, I agree that this article is not necessary for an Encyclopedia. There is only one reason for including it: the fact that certain Anti-Masons have concerns about this word. And that is a topic that is better included in the Anti-Masonry article.Blueboar

"Just because we Masons still treat our Words as being "secret", does not make them so for non-Masons." If your a Mason, then yes it does! Millennium Sentinel

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing here, just a note: a word is often just that: a word (or a name...). It's use in Freemasonry does not [should not] need to be explained to the world, unless perhaps there is a significant reason, i.e. it (or the term) is in common usage. See "third degree" for an example. & a word's Masonic usage is nearly unprovable. With that said, we can try & make sure a word stays just a word, & be justified in the move, & protect any actual or percieved Masonic duties, by getting them over to wiktionary ASAP... Grye

Millennium Sentinel, I must correct your statement above. The Masonic obligations all say "I" will or will not do such and such. Thus, the obligation to keep specific things secret is a personal statement ... that, as a Mason, "I" will not divulge them. No where does it say that I must prevent others from doing so (even fellow Masons). By your logic, the kidnapping and probable murder of William Morgan was justified ... yes, I know that there is a huge difference between deleting something on an on-line encyclopedia and kidnapping... but both are forms of censorship based on misunderstanding the obligations. It is only a matter of degree.

But this is not the place to discuss Masonic obligations. I support the move of any articles about supposed Masonic Words (be they actual words or erronious ones) to Wiktionary - for the simple fact that they are "words". Any article written about them would have to amount to a defiition of the word... and such definitions by... er... definition... belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. That is what a dictionary is for. 'Nuf said (at least by me).Blueboar 14:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a perfectly good explanation of the compound word JAH-BUL-ON, using only the Hebrew language. Reference, The Rev’d Canon Richard Tydeman, An Address to Grand Chapter, (of England), 13th November 1985 – as reported in the public domain. The first syllable indicates eternal existence, the continuing and never-ending I AM. The second syllable really does mean in Hebrew, "in heaven" or "on high". The third syllable is a Hebrew word for Strength or Power. Thus we do not need to go into apologies for faulty scholarship in the past, and we can leave Syria and Egypt and Chaldaea out of it altogether; for what is pronounced are not three names of God (or worse still the names of three gods, as some would suggest) but three aspects or qualities of the Deity which are well known and well used, in Christianity and in other religions, namely His Eternal Existence, His Transcendence, and His Omnipotence. Unfortunately there are many printed rituals which still refer to a name and not a compound word. Now, nothing that is done in another Lodge or Chapter can be described as "wrong", it can only be described as "different". It is for this reason an Alternative View of an entirely Hebrew interpretation emphasises reverence for God and proclaims Him in no uncertain terms as "The True and Living God — The Most High — The Almighty". This is the explanation, which is now encouraged. Millennium Sentinel 14:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the comments regarding Obligations are correct. They are a personal statement, and clearly, for all practical purposes, how far and how literal one takes them is also a personal decision. This is not to put this entire type of debate into a category similar to The Morgan Affair, but just that different people have different ideas.

I would support this being an entry if it was a word (however archaic) that was in common use. However, I can unequivocally state that I have never seen this word in any other context other than a Masonic one (a google search will in fact bring up a lot of anti-Masonic links), so there is a real question of general utility - since it is clearly a specialized word or pseudo-word (as are many of the other words), I do not believe that they are really of any use as an article. Tyler is a notable exception, since it was indeed a general-use word (as is Warden, etc.), but I really think that, even when considering that certain things within Freemasonry need to be explained in order to create an objective view of Freemasonry, it does not require the degree of specialist discussion that this stub article on a "word" is creating. Neither will this ever be an adequate article - credible information simply does not exist. I would rather that this was AfDed, as well as a number of the other word-related articles like Mahabone - they clearly belong in Wiktionary, if anywhere at all, and not in Wikipedia. MSJapan 23:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Jahbulon at Wiktionary

a note on Jahbulon on wiktionary:

edits have been made, often pretty good, & similar to those here.

It is up for deletion.

Redirected this page to the page on Wiktionary. Everything that was on this page is there, except some informative but POV & opinion stuff. If adding it back into the wiktionary page, please consider putting it in the discussion page? Grye 00:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

26 Jan 2006

I am sorry if I am annoying anyone by again restoring Jahbulon as a separate full description, instead of a pointer to wikt:Jahbulon, but there is currently an attempt to delete wikt:Jahbulon, and the word "Jahbulon" is noteworthy enough to need its own article. Anthony Appleyard 17:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This Article was already deleted from Wikipedia. It should not have been restored. The attempt to delete it at Wiktionary is due to similar reasons... it is a bogus word that does not merit either an encyclopedia article or a dictionary article Blueboar 18:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. It does not meet the criteria for either Wikipedia or Wiktionary, and does not belong on either of them. MSJapan 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about Tydeman's address being public domain. It only dates to 1985, and Tydeman is still living (and writes for Freemasonry Today); therefore it should be a copyrighted work. If it was published (I don't know how else one would have the text), it is copywritten by default, and we can't use it here. MSJapan 19:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

At what point was it deleted from Wikipedia? There are no deleted edits in the edit history, nor is there any link to a VfD or AfD discussion. I'm removing the speedy deletion tag for now. If you can prove that this is a repost of previously deleted content, then I'll be happy to delete it. howcheng {chat} 19:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very confused. I thought it was deleted sometime around the end of December last year. I know I had it on my watch list around that time, and the link changed to red... when I checked it, the article had disappeared. I assumed it was due to a deletion. Perhaps not, but then why would it go away? In any case, I am sure we could go through a (another?) AfD review if needed. The article is a sure AfD candidate. Blueboar 20:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is it an AfD candidate? A large international organization's idea of God is important enough to be noteworthy. Anthony Appleyard 23:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it isn't a large international organization's idea of God.--SarekOfVulcan 23:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Howcheng, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jahbulon&oldid=36117335 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jahbulon&direction=prev&oldid=36023602 as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jahbulon&direction=prev&oldid=32665472, nothing but links to wiktionary.--Vidkun 01:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Those are not deleted edits. Howcheng is right. This article has not been deleted. Uncle G 18:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct. AfD started. MSJapan 19:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is Yogy Bear not cited for using Jabbadabbadoo? Or is that another word? We should be told! Skull 'n' Femurs 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK: "do not remove the wiktionary redirect. what about "To begin an article here, feel free to edit this page, but please do not create merely a dictionary definition" does anyone not understand? Grye 08:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It re-appeared, so Jabbadahut forced me to edit it, with his special powers. Skull 'n' Femurs 09:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

torn up

I edited this article apart, with summary statements to each. There's nothing here. Nothing valid at all. there is not one valid source to this article. There is nothing. Grye 09:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the article and provided ISBN links for the quotations section, all of which were trivial to find. Blanking an article (even if it is done a little bit at a time) just days after the AfD in which you voted delete was closed as no consensus does seem like you're trying to circumvent the AfD process. -- AJR | Talk 14:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Page needs to exist

It is indisputable that alot of people out there believe this word to be related to freemasonry. I think this page should consist of merely the history of the allogations surrounding this word. Not the content of the allogation, but just stating the fact that the allogations exist. I feel that the current status of the page goes against the spirit of the AFD being shot down. I don't want to get involved in this however since the last thing I need is another page like this to get involved with, so instead i'm going to file a RfC and see what other editors feel. Seraphim 08:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment? I'll never get back the last 10 minutes of my life that I spent reading this discussion. I'd like to request my 10 minutes in exchange for this comment. Actually, I'd like to comment, but I don't see a page; nothing exists right now. At least restore a version of it, so there's something to comment on. Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmichaud (talk • contribs)

Um.. how about reading what is on the page? "...To begin an article here, feel free to edit this page, but please do not create merely a dictionary definition." Grye 22:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, everything about this article is very disputable: every etymology is speculative, and in particular Stephen Knight's work is fanciful in the extreme. The etymology isn't done properly in any case - you can't propose an etymology in a language in which the word has not been shown to exist. The sources are historical, yet conclusions are made that supposedly apply to the modern day, and every quote was made not by a researcher, but by people with agendas to prove and faulty methods to prove them. I've actually gone ahead and corrected the Wiktionary article somewhat, because while the term may be historically accurate, what it is said to refer to is not. MSJapan 22:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a defination of the word, or an etymology, the word obviously is notable or you guys wouldn't be editing this page :) This page should outline the history of the contraversy surrounding the word, not attempt to define the word. Seraphim 22:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

For the nine-billionth time, fine. Do whatever. grow the word, on wiktionary. Should it become an encyclopedic article, transwiki it here. Whatever. But as-is, 1) it isn't an encyclopedic article, & 2) what there is, be it dictionary or encyclopedic, isn't actually true. & it's a notable pain in the butt. If someone wrote an article about "jamahabubone", & called it Masonic whatever of whatever used whenever by so-n-so wingnut, we'd probably be editing that article too ;~D Grye 22:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

True or false: people love claiming that this word is a masonic "secret word" and have done so numerous times through history. The answer is true. That is what this page should be about, the history of the contravercy around the word, not what the word itself means, that would be a wiktionary article. Seraphim 23:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It'd still most likely be a stub. & that's been tried countless times, but w/ really poor or no citations, loads of POV, & otherwise just really bad writing. But go to it, if you can do it right, but I'd read the history here & on wiktionary first. Oh, & probably the Summary comments'd help too... Grye 23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine I'll problary toss something together soon. However i'd like to point out, that even if something has been proven false, the fact that the accusation was made is the historical aspect. Text like "some catholics in the past has claimed that jahbulon is a masonic god and therefore does not allow masonry to co-exist with catholisim, which masons vehemently deny"(obviously with cites) is npov and 100% valid to include in the article. Seraphim 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK... good luck. Blueboar 23:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about to go to Wiktionary. Again.

• I have Marked yhis a dictionary article
• Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary
• & will again Transwiki this article, this time 1000% correctly.

Grye 08:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I just added an opening paragraph to show where this page should be going. This is NOT a defination, there is a history of contravercy that surrounds this word, and that alone make it notable and able to stand on it's own as an article. Seraphim 11:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A for effort, but the citations were not in a good place, one was silly-poor (TLEM), it & a lot of the section were POV, & it would still be, maybe, added to the talk pages of the wiktionaried article. Grye 11:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

When was the word first brought into the public?

I am trying to find the first instance of the word being made public. I think explaining the situation of the word first being disclosed would be very interesting material to have in the article. I see from older edits here that when it first came out the Orthodox Christians were the first group to jump on it. But I can't find out the exact circumstances, does anyone know? Seraphim 11:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you see that this article was transwikified by cut-and-paste a while ago, & that the wiktionary & "please do not create a disctionary article" tag is valid? Grye 11:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)