Seeking Recommendation David Rankine and Stephen Skinner: Are Their Books Reliable Sources for Occult Practice?

[Angelkesfarl]

David Rankine and Stephen Skinner: Are Their Books Reliable Sources for Occult Practice?
Hello everyone,

I’m reaching out to the seasoned practitioners here—those who actively work with grimoires like the Key of Solomon and other texts edited or translated by Stephen Skinner and David Rankine.

Their contribution in making these ancient manuscripts accessible is undeniable and deserves immense respect. However, as practitioners, we must move beyond mere historical appreciation and address a critical, practical question regarding the efficacy and safety of our work.

The Core Inquiry: Accuracy vs. Authenticity
The names, seals, and sigils published in their editions (like the Sloane MSS) are almost certainly authentic—meaning they accurately reproduce what was written in the original 17th-century manuscripts.

But here is the dilemma:

Do we believe that the original scribes (who may have been poorly educated or working from deteriorating copies) always transcribed the Divine/Angelic/Demonic Names perfectly? Or is it more likely that errors in spelling, transliteration (especially from Hebrew/Aramaic), or sigil drawing have been embedded in the historical record?

When working with Rankine's or Skinner's reproductions, are we using seals that are spiritually and numerologically corrected (i.e., validated against Qabalistic/Celestial methodologies), or simply historically accurate copies of an imperfect document?

The Call for Discussion
I want to hear from practitioners who have actively used seals and names from these popular editions:

Has anyone performed their own linguistic/Qabalistic analysis on a seal from these books and found a necessary correction that significantly improved the result of the working?

Do you treat the published seals as the final word, or do you apply an additional correctional methodology (like the use of astronomical tables or rigorous Gematria) before the ritual?

For those who perform operations based purely on these popular texts, have you noticed inconsistent or delayed results, which might be attributable to a potential flaw in the transcribed names?

This isn't an attack on these valuable scholars, but a necessary step for the serious practitioner committed to true efficacy and adherence to the pure roots of the Art. Let’s discuss our practical experience and validation methods.

 

[Sabbatius]

David Rankine and Stephen Skinner: Are Their Books Reliable Sources for Occult Practice?
Hello everyone,

I’m reaching out to the seasoned practitioners here—those who actively work with grimoires like the Key of Solomon and other texts edited or translated by Stephen Skinner and David Rankine.

Their contribution in making these ancient manuscripts accessible is undeniable and deserves immense respect. However, as practitioners, we must move beyond mere historical appreciation and address a critical, practical question regarding the efficacy and safety of our work.

The Core Inquiry: Accuracy vs. Authenticity
The names, seals, and sigils published in their editions (like the Sloane MSS) are almost certainly authentic—meaning they accurately reproduce what was written in the original 17th-century manuscripts.

But here is the dilemma:

Do we believe that the original scribes (who may have been poorly educated or working from deteriorating copies) always transcribed the Divine/Angelic/Demonic Names perfectly? Or is it more likely that errors in spelling, transliteration (especially from Hebrew/Aramaic), or sigil drawing have been embedded in the historical record?

When working with Rankine's or Skinner's reproductions, are we using seals that are spiritually and numerologically corrected (i.e., validated against Qabalistic/Celestial methodologies), or simply historically accurate copies of an imperfect document?

The Call for Discussion
I want to hear from practitioners who have actively used seals and names from these popular editions:

Has anyone performed their own linguistic/Qabalistic analysis on a seal from these books and found a necessary correction that significantly improved the result of the working?

Do you treat the published seals as the final word, or do you apply an additional correctional methodology (like the use of astronomical tables or rigorous Gematria) before the ritual?

For those who perform operations based purely on these popular texts, have you noticed inconsistent or delayed results, which might be attributable to a potential flaw in the transcribed names?

This isn't an attack on these valuable scholars, but a necessary step for the serious practitioner committed to true efficacy and adherence to the pure roots of the Art. Let’s discuss our practical experience and validation methods.

When working as a translator, you copy over everything, including the mistakes, and then notate exactly where the mistakes are. This is where it is very important to read the side/end notes in Rankine's and Skinner's works. Daniel Matt and Joseph Peterson both emphasize that in order to know the full work of a translation, you need to document the human error and with Matt's work on Kabbalistic discourse, this is needed to show the emphasis on the era in which the work itself is from, and with Peterson, it is needed to show the errors from the language of the era as well.

Most scribes were not a hobbled illiterate as depicted by the Book of Kells artists who were drawing the letters by sight. Much of the work in Ceremonial & Solomonic Magic scripts were well versed. The issues were with secrecy, utilizing copies themselves and the means to document without socio-religio-political issues creeping in. In these cases, often there was translation issues dealing with the "Christianization" of a text, or in many cases I have ran into, an incomplete text which is virtually unusable.

As for a historical record- what you have printed is what we have. Now, there are materials still being translated- and there are a LOT of material, however, the need for translators is huge and there are very few, regardless of how many people wish to do the work but eventually realize it is one of the most boring jobs on the planet. I know this to be true, but I am boring and love boredom. I entertain myself with sounding out the horrible script as I try to translate.

As for the proper sigilization- again, what you see is what was on the page, just scanned and cleared up as much as can be done. There is no vault of what is exact, except what was in the original work. However, in this case, as also stated, read the side/end notes because sometimes, in some text, you will find out that the author stole a work from an earlier text, often not even in the same school of esoterica. The Ægishjálmur is found in the Magical Treatise of Solomon, written prior to the Galdrabók from whence it appeared as the Helm of Awe.

 

[Angelkesfarl]

When working as a translator, you copy over everything, including the mistakes, and then notate exactly where the mistakes are. This is where it is very important to read the side/end notes in Rankine's and Skinner's works. Daniel Matt and Joseph Peterson both emphasize that in order to know the full work of a translation, you need to document the human error and with Matt's work on Kabbalistic discourse, this is needed to show the emphasis on the era in which the work itself is from, and with Peterson, it is needed to show the errors from the language of the era as well.

Most scribes were not a hobbled illiterate as depicted by the Book of Kells artists who were drawing the letters by sight. Much of the work in Ceremonial & Solomonic Magic scripts were well versed. The issues were with secrecy, utilizing copies themselves and the means to document without socio-religio-political issues creeping in. In these cases, often there was translation issues dealing with the "Christianization" of a text, or in many cases I have ran into, an incomplete text which is virtually unusable.

As for a historical record- what you have printed is what we have. Now, there are materials still being translated- and there are a LOT of material, however, the need for translators is huge and there are very few, regardless of how many people wish to do the work but eventually realize it is one of the most boring jobs on the planet. I know this to be true, but I am boring and love boredom. I entertain myself with sounding out the horrible script as I try to translate.

As for the proper sigilization- again, what you see is what was on the page, just scanned and cleared up as much as can be done. There is no vault of what is exact, except what was in the original work. However, in this case, as also stated, read the side/end notes because sometimes, in some text, you will find out that the author stole a work from an earlier text, often not even in the same school of esoterica. The Ægishjálmur is found in the Magical Treatise of Solomon, written prior to the Galdrabók from whence it appeared as the Helm of Awe.

Esteemed friend of research and enthusiast of methodological precision,

Your profound analysis regarding the essential difference between the duty of the historical transcriber and the duty of the practical operator confirms that we are indeed operating from the same solid foundation. We have moved past the stage of questioning the ethics of translation; we agree that correction must be the necessary subsequent stage.

However, a true methodology is not established by theory alone, but proves itself through the result.

Therefore, since you possess deep insight into analyzing corrupted texts, we eagerly invite you to:

Present one specific name or a particular magical sigil in which you have found a fundamental linguistic variance between the copies you have worked on (whether from Eastern sources like Shams al-Ma'arif or Western sources like the Grimoires).

We wish to examine together what you termed the "Universal Qabalistic Rule," to extract the following for this name:

Its Original Linguistic Root that aligns with its function.

The Numerical (Gematric) Correction that leads to the True Signature (The Prima Signatura) which carries the effective power.

Would you honor us by providing an example from your research so that we may commence the work of esoteric physics together?

 

[Sabbatius]

Esteemed friend of research and enthusiast of methodological precision,

Your profound analysis regarding the essential difference between the duty of the historical transcriber and the duty of the practical operator confirms that we are indeed operating from the same solid foundation. We have moved past the stage of questioning the ethics of translation; we agree that correction must be the necessary subsequent stage.

However, a true methodology is not established by theory alone, but proves itself through the result.

Therefore, since you possess deep insight into analyzing corrupted texts, we eagerly invite you to:

Present one specific name or a particular magical sigil in which you have found a fundamental linguistic variance between the copies you have worked on (whether from Eastern sources like Shams al-Ma'arif or Western sources like the Grimoires).

We wish to examine together what you termed the "Universal Qabalistic Rule," to extract the following for this name:

Its Original Linguistic Root that aligns with its function.

The Numerical (Gematric) Correction that leads to the True Signature (The Prima Signatura) which carries the effective power.

Would you honor us by providing an example from your research so that we may commence the work of esoteric physics together?

I work with Hebrew and Greek manuscripts when hired. To note, my colleagues and I are pretty much ghostwriters who receive no credit for anything we do. We get paid after submitting our work and that is the end of it. I have been hired by professional authors, colleges, libraries and private collection houses around the world.

The most common mistranslation are the God-names. Mostly, this is due to medieval interpretation from Romaic Greek, and moreso Latin, interfering with Hebrew wording. An example being an inscription of the Tetragrammaton, however, it was written in Hebrew but spelled out the literal word Tetragrammaton.

Most linguistic errors found are, due to copying from those who did not know Hebrew, switched letters in a word- and the occasional Dalet and Resh mix up, or the Beth and Qof. Gimel and Nun are, but less common in my experiences- for some reason. This is not true with the Greek, however the issues in translation of Greek is the admixture of switching letter style and case.

Honestly, I have mostly worked on Eastern European, mostly from Prague for the last decade, and Italian copies of Solomonic works, which were mainly portions from the Keys of Solomon, Grand Grimoire, Hygromanteia and the Notary Arts. However, that is what I have worked on for esoteric works- the majority of my translation work has consisted of Christian Pseudepigrapha, recent discoveries of (Neo)Gnostic texts, lots of Byzantine literary works and a plethora of Rabbinical literature.

To note- I do translation work as a side job and it is not steady work for me as there is some work I just cannot do- due to the level of skill and technology I have on hand, it would be impossible for me to do properly. So, I do turn down a lot of work.

As with providing something of my work, not much to share. I can tell you that some of my translation work has been posted here. How I know is because the dates of print coincide with the author I knew I was working with. What portion came from my work is ingrained on the MS, and which .MS is in the print varies. But, I know my work was a part of the overall layout, whether confirming or side-noted to explain any error or inconsistencies.

 

[Faria]

Do we believe that the original scribes (who may have been poorly educated or working from deteriorating copies) always transcribed the Divine/Angelic/Demonic Names perfectly?

No, of course not. Every text, including the primary source, has flaws and errors.

As a person who isn't really looking for the "original authentic and most accurate version" of things, the variations are what give each individual variant its character. For example, a friend and I have been obsessively looking at a particular 18th century mystical text with an obscure symbol. In one version it looks like scribble, in others it is more clear, and in one much later revision of the same text, the whole thing is resolved into a stylized form of the name Jehovah which looks uncannily accurate. Is it more correct to use Jehovah in this place, or the scribble-sigil? As a practitioner you are forced to choose whether to replicate symbols or interpret them.

When working with Rankine's or Skinner's reproductions, are we using seals that are spiritually and numerologically corrected (i.e., validated against Qabalistic/Celestial methodologies), or simply historically accurate copies of an imperfect document?

There is no "correct" numerology or spirit anything. Everything related to those topics, barring nothing, is entirely arbitrary and meaningless for someone not invested in those ideas. Kabbalah, the Tree of Life, all of that, is entirely different from one source to the next, there is no essential correct version.

Has anyone performed their own linguistic/Qabalistic analysis on a seal from these books and found a necessary correction that significantly improved the result of the working?

Yes. It's very likely that every practitioner interprets things their own way and most spend a bit of time trying to unravel the mysteries of names and seals.

Until a few years ago, every magician of the last 500 years using planetary seals from Agrippa was using some of them upside-down due to printing errors in early editions. That didn't stop anyone in the last 500 years. Using the updated "correct" ones doesn't do anything to improve results. It's not about the sigil forms, or the names or how you pronounce them, it's about your individual engagement with the spirits and powers presiding over the work.

Do you treat the published seals as the final word, or do you apply an additional correctional methodology (like the use of astronomical tables or rigorous Gematria) before the ritual?

Gematria is one of the most useless and irrelevant things in occult practice, and is mostly popular among fringe woo people who have no real practical connection to the occult. It's a mind trap for schizos. Almost any time you take a written occult procedure and modify it by adding things that require tables, charts, and an abundance of data, you are going the wrong direction. None of that makes a damn bit of difference.

For those who perform operations based purely on these popular texts, have you noticed inconsistent or delayed results, which might be attributable to a potential flaw in the transcribed names?

No magician of the last several thousand years has used a flawless set of names or symbols. The whole of Magick Arte depends on obscure things from obscure sources, even back to PGM whose practitioners probably had no idea what the magic words meant.

Is the Sacred Name supposed to be Yahweh, Jehovah, or Tetragrammaton? Which is correct? Jews pronouce it as Adonai. It's not about finding the correct true form of things, but using the one that expresses what you want to say.