Talk:The Satanic Bible

message: Ah, this looks fun!  From a first glance, I note there seems to be little information on publication, other than what is stated in the lead.  Per WP:LEAD, this information (when it was published, by whom, how many printings, how well it sold, etc.) needs to also be present in the body of the article.  I would suggest adding a new section to address the publication history so as to ensure broad coverage of the subject, which is one of the criteria for Good Article. María (yllosubmarine) 14:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a subsection under history addressing this, and have expanded it a little with new research. Thank you for the suggestion! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-GAC review suggestions

message: The article states that the Book of Belial was adapted from sources such as "Magick: elementary theory". The reference for this is the J. Gunn article that states that the "how-to" part of the Satanic Bible is "a simple rehash of the directives of ritual magicians found in books like Aleister Crowley’s Magick: Elementary Theory". However, anyone who has read the Crowley reference will appreciate that it is not a "how-to" book of rituals at all, but rather a series of essays on the esoteric symbolism of the accoutrements of ritual. Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that the rituals in the Book of Belial actually were adapted from this source as the content and scope of each are quite dissimilar.--Smcg8374 (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not read Magick: Elementary Theory, so I can't say one way or another if they are similar or not. However, even if I had read the book, my own opinion on the matter would be original research. As for your concern regarding the Gunn quote, I'm not sure if you're questioning the reliability of the Gunn article or my application of it to the Book of Belial section. I'll address both possibilities. As for my usage of this sentence in the section on the Book of Belial: You quoted only a part of J. Gunn's sentence from which I pulled this information. The full sentence reads, "In a how-to manner, one part presents a number of rituals to be performed by the Satanist and details the sorts of materials he or she should acquire, a simple rehash of the directives of ritual magicians found in books like Aleister Crowley’s Magick: Elementary Theory (1997: 47–116)." I think it's fair to infer that Gunn is speaking of The Book of Belial, as that is the book in The Satanic Bible that contains the rituals. If you're contesting the reliability of the Gunn article, I'd like to disagree. Gunn is a professor who has studied occultism and Satanism deeply. The article is published in Visual Communication, a peer-reviewed communications journal published by SAGE Publications. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I removed your  tag. I left an explanation in the edit summary, but in case you do not notice it or want more explanation: the first sentence ("It describes that the concept of "God" is different to each LaVeyan Satanist, but that to all it represents a good and steadying force in his or her life.") is discussing the concept of God as a force, not a being. The second ("Believers have been called "atheistic Satanists" because of this lack of belief in external gods, but others identify as antitheistic.") is discussing the belief in a specific God. The difference here is essentially the difference between spirituality and religion. The whole paragraph is trying to explain that LaVeyan Satanists don't believe in a being called "God" or "Satan" (contrary to popular belief), but rather believe in a metaphorical Satan that is actually a force in nature. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hi GorillaWarfare. I acknowledge J. Gunn's qualifications and the reliability of the source.  I made an objection to Gunn's claims on the common sense grounds that the contents of Crowley's book do not concern the practical 'how-to' aspects of ritual covered in LaVey's book and therefore, in spite of Gunn's apparent expertise in the matter, his statement hardly seem true. A 'simple rehash' would surely imply substantial similarity between the two books when they are qualitatively different. Unfortunately, I do not have any references at hand that adequately summarise the contents of Magick: Elementary Theory, although I'm sure they exist in print somewhere. Furthermore, the 'how-to' part of The Satanic Bible includes the Book of Leviathan as well as that of Belial. Perhaps, the article sentence in question could be amended to include an attribution, until other references can be found, e.g. "According to J. Gunn..." Just a suggestion, it's not a really a big deal to me. --Smcg8374 (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have changed the wording as you suggested.  – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

text: *You stated that to LaVeyan Satanists "God" represents a good and steadying force in his or her life. In the Satanic Bible chapter Wanted! God dead or alive, LaVey stated: "To the Satanist 'God' - by whatever name he is called, or by no name at all - is seen as the balancing force in nature, and as not being concerned with suffering. This powerful force which permeates and balances the universe is far too impersonal to care about the happiness or misery of flesh-and-blood creatures..." Nowhere does LaVey state that God is good or that this impersonal force has a steadying influence on anyone's life. If the paragraph is trying to explain that Satanists believe in a metaphorical "Satan" why attribute this force to "God"? This seems to imply that LaVey regarded "God" and "Satan" as interchangeable metaphors but the text does not seem to support this interpretation. Hence I think this paragraph needs to be reworded for greater clarity --Smcg8374 (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've reworded to try to convey this point. You're right; it was a bit ambiguous. Do you think this is clear enough? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm still unsure about this statement. Can you provide a page number in the Satanic Bible that would support the notion that the metaphor of Satan is used synonymously with God? Sorry if I seem pedantic. --Smcg8374 (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

text: OK thanks for adding that passage. I think you've made a reasonable interpretation based on the text. I guess I find the way LaVey writes to be a bit convoluted, which is probably why I was uncertain, but anyway go ahead with the FA nomination. --Smcg8374 (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Belial sources 

message: Some substantial revisions of the article may be warranted based on new scholarship by Eugene V. Gallagher.  
His article, "Sources, Sects, and Scripture: The Book of Satan in The Satanic Bible" appears as Chapter 5 in the 2013 book, The Devil's Party: Satanism in Modernity edited by Per Faxneld and Jesper Aa. Petersen and published by Oxford University Press.  
Gallagher's article presents the highly compelling results of his detailed textual analysis of "The Book of Satan" in which he convincingly demonstrates that LaVey cannot simplistically be accused of "plagiarism" in that he very carefully selected, edited and re-arranged passages from within Redbeard's Might is Right and added his own words and phrases to communicate his own highly unique message. In so doing, LaVey was engaging in a practice identified by Bart Ehrman's "redaction analysis" as a commonplace method of creating scripture in the past.  Gallagher writes, "In assembling his Bible, inadvertently or not, LaVey employed a mode of composition used for more than two thousand five hundred years in the West to produce texts that have come to be regarded as scripture.  Gallagher goes on to make some convincing arguments which reveal the biases of both Aquino and Matthews writings and analysis of the Satanic Bible.
Specifically, the article's section on the Book of Satan should more accurately reflect the careful and deliberate editorial selection, modification, rearrangement and supplementation LaVey did with Redbeard's original phrases to create the Book of Satan.  Additionally, in view of Gallagher's more neutral and detailed analysis, it is pretty clear that the word "plagiarized" should probably be replaced with "borrowed heavily" or some such more neutral characterization.  Finally, it is clear that Lewis' characterization of The Satanic Bible as "quasi" scripture is incomplete and somewhat perjorative in view of the scholarship by Gallagher (using Ehrman's work) showing that it has indeed attained scriptural status within an identifiable group.  I have made that change already.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMerciless (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've refactored your edit regarding LaVey's modifications to the content he took from Might is Right. Saying that he "carefully selected, rearranged and supplemented them ... to convey LaVey's unique message" is quite biased in favor of LaVey; other people would take a much different opinion. Both sides of the argument would agree that he "edited" the original texts, and that's the wording I've used here. I've left your edit where you replace "plagiarized" with "borrowed heavily," though I'm a bit on the fence about whether or not it's just a euphemism. I don't agree that "plagiarized" is non-neutral. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reevaluations in light of new article by Gallagher 

message: Has someone still got the first edition of the Satanic Bible? I would like to know what texts has been changed in the second edition of the Satanic Bible? In this way, I think the book is not anymore the original book written by Anton Szandor LaVey. Why? Thank you for your interest!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.194.111 (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's been my experience with the various versions as well; the changes seem to largely be to the introduction, though I've only encountered a few versions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About second re-edition 

message: I've removed the addition of "Zondervan (HarperCollins)" to the infobox. The edit summary in the addition says "I did some research and found that the publisher listed was incorrect," but the copy I have sitting in front of me names Avon Books as the publisher (as do other sources in a quick Google search: , ). A Google search for "Zondervan Satanic Bible" seems to only return alarmist blogs claiming that such a Christian publisher is also publishing The Satanic Bible, but I'm not seeing any reliable sources to back that up. I wonder if the alarm is just because both Avon and Zondervan are owned by HarperCollins? Anyhow, please find and include a reliable source before re-adding. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publisher 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The Satanic Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://satanismcentral.com/aslv.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified