Shem HaMephorash
Transmission & Sourcing

History & Sourcing

"Shem HaMephorash" meant something different at almost every stage of its history — and the 72 angels most people mean by the term today are a comparatively late, Christian Hermetic addition to a much older Jewish concept. Both threads are traced here, and where sources actively disagree, that's named rather than smoothed over.

Timeline

Tannaitic period – Mishnah to Geonim

A name for the Tetragrammaton

"Shem HaMephorash" — "the explicit name" — originally referred simply to the four-letter Tetragrammaton (YHVH) itself, not to any 72-part system.

Bacher; Ginsburg (1925), p.182.

Rishonic period (~10th–15th c.)

Reinterpreted as a 42-letter name

The term shifted to describe a separate 42-letter name, a reading later retrojected back onto earlier Mishnaic references. Maimonides and Rashi both held that the actual letters of this 42-letter name were unknown; other authorities linked it to the acrostic behind the piyyut Ana b'Koach.

Trachtenberg (1939), pp.90–98; per Hayy ben Sherira and Rabbeinu Tam.

Rashi (11th c.) & Sefer HaBahir (c. 1150–1200)

The 72-letter derivation is explained

The boustrophedon method — three 72-letter verses (Exodus 14:19–21) read in alternating direction to yield 72 three-letter columns — appears in Rashi's commentary on b. Sukkah 45a and independently in Sefer HaBahir. This is the first clear documentation of the derivation used on this site's Method page.

Medieval – Sefer Raziel HaMalakh

Central to a major grimoire

The 72-fold name became central to Sefer Raziel HaMalakh (Book of the Angel Raziel), a grimoire on angelology, gematria, and protective magic. Kabbalist legend holds Moses used the 72-fold name to part the Red Sea, and that later practitioners could use it to heal, protect, or bind demons.

1517 – Johann Reuchlin, De Arte Cabalistica

The turn to angels

Reuchlin was the first to describe the 72 names — made pronounceable with the suffixes -El or -Yah — as names of individual angels, understood as products of divine will. This is the pivot point: everything before Reuchlin is a Jewish mystical tradition about letters and divine names; everything after includes an explicitly angelic, increasingly Christian-Hermetic layer built on top of it.

16th–17th c. – Agrippa, Kircher, de Vigenère, Rudd

Christian Hermetic systematization

Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa copied Reuchlin's angel list into Three Books of Occult Philosophy (Book 3, ch.25). Athanasius Kircher and Blaise de Vigenère extended the correspondences further. Thomas Rudd, building on de Vigenère, proposed the 72 angels as a counterbalance to the 72 spirits of the Ars Goetia in the Lesser Key of Solomon tradition — a specifically ceremonial-magic use with no basis in the original Jewish material.

Late 19th c. – Golden Dawn (S.L. MacGregor Mathers)

The zodiac correspondences most sites use today

Mathers, drawing on de Vigenère's manuscripts, formalized the numerological framework tying the 72 names to 24 "Thrones" (from the Tetragrammaton + its 4-letter substitute ADNI, combined into an 8-letter name, ×3 rays each = 24×3 = 72) and assigned each name to a 5° zodiac quinance. This Golden Dawn system — not the original Talmudic or Kabbalistic material — is the source for the quinance dates on this site's names table.

Where the sources actually disagree

Naming

Two names both called "Lauviah"

Positions 11 and 17 both list a name transliterated "Lauviah" in the Golden-Dawn-descended tradition this site's table otherwise follows. This is a genuine feature of the tradition, not a typo on this page.

Some sources disambiguate the 17th as "Levaniah" or explicitly label the pair "Lauviah I / Lauviah II."
Others (including several angel-by-angel reference sites) simply repeat "Lauviah" for both and rely on the sequence number to distinguish them.
Ordering

Where the zodiac wheel starts

The Golden Dawn's own list begins its enumeration from Leo rather than Aries, reflecting an internal Golden Dawn convention about where the zodiacal year "begins" for this purpose — meaning the angel Golden Dawn sources call "first" (Yeliel, ruling early Leo) is not the same as name #1 in the numbered sequence most public tables use (Vehuiah, ruling late March/Aries).

This site's table uses the numbered sequence (Aries start, #1–72) since that's the convention most current reference material and search behavior expects — but be aware Golden Dawn primary-source material itself is ordered differently.
Attribution

Choir / angelic hierarchy assignment

Various traditions group the 72 names into eight bands of nine, tying each band to a rank in the angelic hierarchy (Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, etc.) or to a specific Sephirah. These groupings differ between Golden Dawn material, older Continental grimoire sources, and modern popularizations.

This site deliberately omits a specific choir column on the names table rather than assert one scheme as definitive. Individual angel pages (where built) may discuss choir attribution with sourcing specific to that name.
Function

Jewish mystical name vs. ceremonial-magic angel

It's worth being direct about this one: the Talmudic and early Kabbalistic material (through Sefer HaBahir) is about a divine name — a mystical linguistic object, not 72 separate entities to invoke. The angel-by-angel system most people encounter today, with individual sigils, planetary correspondences, and invocation instructions, is a 16th–17th century Christian Hermetic construction built on top of the older material, not a continuation of it.

Neither framing is "correct" at the expense of the other — they're different traditions that happen to share a numerical starting point. This site covers both because both are what people searching "Shem HaMephorash" are usually looking for.
On this site generally: quinance dates, spellings, and zodiac assignments follow the Golden-Dawn-descended convention used by most current reference material, since that's what the majority of visitors are trying to look up. Where a name has its own dedicated page on this network, that page may go into more source-specific detail than is practical here.