Gnostic Secrets of Melchizedek
(Revised)
By
James M. West. Copyright © November
11, 2008; revised
E-mail:
ogdood@yahoo.com
Who is the mysterious figure of
Melchizedek? In the Old Testament he is the priest-king of the ancient
pre-Israelite city of
Before we move along to the issues in
question, we must briefly touch on the historic place of Melchizedek in early
Gnostic tradition. The fact that early Gnostics assigned importance to this
figure may be seen in the treatise named after Melchizedek which is
part of the Nag Hammadi Library. Unfortunately this text has succumbed to the
ravages of time and is in very poor condition. Large sections of the text have
been reduced to fragments; and many sentences in the restored text are little
more than theoretical reconstructions. For this reason it is difficult to
determine exactly what is said in the text aside from a few key themes, which will
be summarized here in brief:
In this treatise Melchizedek is placed
within the Gnostic scheme of salvation history; and spiritual secrets are
unveiled regarding him. The main theme is where a certain angel named
“Gamaliel” appears to Melchizedek and reveals the mysteries of the Godhead.
This angel also reveals future events regarding the Savior Jesus and the
crucifixion. Actual evidence of a link to Gnostic tradition may be seen in the
mention of certain familiar “aions” such as Barbelo, and the four luminaries
Harmozel, Oroiael, Daveithe and Eleleth, as mentioned in the Apocryphon of
John [1]. It seems that this text is meant to portray the initiation of
Melchizedek into the mysteries of the Most High. If my reading is correct then
Melchizedek is the archetypal Gnostic priest. In Bible history he is the first
of the Gnostics—not in the literal sense, but in the sense that Melchizedek is
a symbol of the Truth in the Old Testament which transcends the Law of Moses
and the Archons/Angels (see below).
But again, because of the poor condition
of this Gnostic text, there is little more that can be said with any certainty.
In this present article I want to draw my readers’ attention to the many
paradoxes involving Melchizedek which are preserved in the Bible
itself—paradoxes which allow Melchizedek to be a potent symbol of Gnostic truth
even today. I believe the Bible itself contains the best evidence for a link
between this figure and the Gnostic revelation of the God above god. Get
ready for some surprises.
Let us begin this discussion by
acknowledging the simple problem with the Old Testament which is at the
foundation of Gnostic theology. I refer to the simple truth in that the Old
Testament lacks a single, uniform system of theology [2]. Gnostic theology and
its multiple theological principles are a direct reflection of this truth. As
opposed to the “orthodox” creed of one God, or one Trinity of God,
the Gnostics saw various elements which they identified with Sophia, the
Demiurge, and numerous angelic powers (e.g. Ireanaeus, Against Heresies,
1.30.11; see my article Gnostics
and the Old Testament). Thus when Proverbs 9:1 says that “Wisdom
built her house upon seven pillars” this meant that Sophia was above the
seven heavenly powers—including Jehovah. And when David wrote in Psalms 40:6
that the Lord “neither required, nor desired burnt offerings” this
referred to another God than the Demiurge who instructed Moses “This
is the law of the burnt offering, the meat offering, and of the sin offering…which
the Lord commanded on Mt. Sinai…” (Leviticus 7:37–38 cf. Numbers 28)
Certainly these passages show that the
Old Testament does not contain one simple theology or tradition. Numerous
theologies are preserved in the Bible and do not reflect the simple dogma of one
God. Thus where Deuteronomy
Next there is the problem in that some
manuscripts don’t always affirm the dogma that Jehovah (YHWH) is the one
supreme Being. An example may be seen in the highly enigmatic passage in
Deuteronomy 32:8–9, as preserved in both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Septuagint (LXX):
“When
the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the
sons of Adam, he set the bounds according to the number of the angels of God.
For the Lord’s portion is his people. Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.”
(LXX)
In the passage above an obvious
distinction is made between Jehovah and the Most High [3]. Clearly this passage
says that the “Most High” grants the inheritance and that “Jehovah” (YHWH) has
received “Jacob” (read:
“When
the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the
sons of Adam, he set the bounds according to the number of the sons of
The words “sons of
Ancient Hellenistic Jews like Paul and
Philo, and the later Gnostics, would have read the Greek translation, which
says that the nations were divided among the “angels of God” and that Jacob was
the “Lord’s inheritance.” The Dead Sea Scrolls translation says “sons of God”
which was also deemed theologically incorrect and has been modified in the
later the Masoretic text. Both of the latter manuscripts agree that the Lord is
“YHWH” and which the LXX translates as “Lord” (Kurios).
When we read these passages in their
earlier forms, whether in Hebrew or Greek, we can see that a different
theological paradigm emerges in comparison with the later Rabbinical and
Christian “orthodox” traditions. In both Philo and Paul we can see examples of
that other Judaism and the theology that these men construed from the
scriptures. As I have pointed out repeatedly in my articles, Paul actually
believed that the Law was given by angels, not God. Philo believed that the
visible “Lord” God of the Old Testament was a lesser god, which he described as
a chief angel or logos, which was a lower manifestation of the
supreme Being (e.g. Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues, 146; see my
articles On God and Justice; Gnostics and the OT).
In Paul’s case it becomes understandable
how it was that he construed the scriptures to mean that the Law of Moses was
commanded by angels and not God. In the Greek translation of Dt. 32:8–9 the
Lawgiver is referred to as an angel who receives
The passage above raises many issues
which were reflected later in Paul and in Gnostic tradition. First, the writer
above (supposedly David) refers to a God that did not demand the sacrifices as
mandated in the books of Moses. Moreover, this writer quotes a passage from a
“scroll” which cannot be found in the Old Testament. The historical solution to
this paradox is that Psalms and most other OT books actually existed before
the books of Moses, and this is why “Moses” is never quoted in the Psalms, in
Proverbs, or in the Prophets. Psalms and Proverbs actually reflect a Hebrew
culture which existed before the Law of Moses; and scholars agree that
the books of Moses reflect a later reformation which has been imposed on an
older tradition. Thus in the books of Moses we find the “ten commandments” and
an elaborate system of sacrificial rituals; but none of this is mentioned in
the Psalms, or in the Proverbs, or even in Isaiah. None of these writers have
studied the “Law of Moses.” They neither mention it by name nor quote it.
Again, none of these books quote “Genesis” or “Exodus” or “Deuteronomy”
—because these books didn’t exist [5]. Whatever it was that was quoted in
Psalms 40:8, it is not found in any known biblical text.
The consequences for Paul is that he
recognized a duality of themes between the Law which Moses commanded, and the
Law which “David” says is written in his heart, and does not require
sacrifices. Nor is there any reference in Psalms to circumcision. For Paul this
is the source of the idea that the “law” is written in one’s heart as opposed
to the Law that was given by angels to Moses, and which Paul refers to as
“written in stone” and as the “ministry of death” (2 Cor. 3:7, cf. Rom. 2:15,
3:20, Gal. 3:19). In Romans
Clearly Paul believed that the Law of
Moses had no role in the divine plan for salvation. And it is clear that Paul
recognized more than one theological element in the Old Testament (see my
article Gnostics and the Old Testament). This duality of themes is
reflected in a most intriguing way in another New Testament book, known as the Epistle
to Hebrews. This letter is an address from the Paulinist (or Hellenist)
wing of the early church to the Hebrew Christians [6]. This letter is a warning
to Hebrew Christians who place emphasis on Moses and the Law over and above
grace (cf. Mt.
Most important is that the biblical
figure of Melchizedek is intertwined with the notion of a foreign theology that
does not fall within the bounds of Rabbinical or Christian orthodoxy. In the
secular realm of thought the reason for this is that Melchizedek, the priest of
the Most High God, is really a part of the ancient Semitic history that
predates the nation of
The other Bible passage where
Melchizedek is mentioned is in Psalms 110:1–4. This is surely the older of the
two passages. In Judeo-Christian tradition this passage is regarded as a prophecy
written by David, in which Jehovah places Jesus’s enemies under his feet, and
that Jesus will be made a priest after the “order of Melchizedek.” In Jewish
tradition this passage reflects a coronation rite for a king. Among secular
historians, this passage is regarded as a piece of “syncretism” that dates back
to the Jebusites, and is a fragment that is preserved, in a sanitized form, in
Israelite literature (James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible,
“Melchizedek”). The clue in this case is the name Melchizedek itself. This name
derives from Canaanite culture and refers to the name of a Canaanite god
“Zedek” (
It must also be understood, even from
biblical evidence, that ancient Israelite society was a polytheistic society.
This is evident throughout scripture where the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and
Ezekiel are the fanatical devotees of YHWH, whereas the Israelite religious
establishment is polytheistic. King Solomon himself is blamed for having
brought foreign gods to
Recall now that the Psalms make no
actual reference to the Law of Moses. And in the Septuagint these texts don’t
even make a specific reference to YHWH. In the Septuagint “YHWH” has been
replaced by the Greek word “Kurios” meaning Lord. Add to this that Psalms and
the books of Moses lack consistent theological elements as we have seen above.
It is from this very situation that the heretical currents began to spring out
of Hellenistic Judaism and into Philo and Paul, and on into later
Gnosticism—which also lays claim to Melchizedek (NHL). These heretical currents
are further compounded by the problem in that there is no functioning order of
Melchizedek in ancient
For the Gnostic all these issues point
to a sublime allegorical meaning that is symbolized in the figure Melchizedek.
Melchizedek is a symbol of the theological paradoxes that underlay the
“orthodox” monotheistic concept of the Bible, and the false god that
“orthodoxy” attempts to erect as the supreme Being. Indeed Melchizedek is a
symbol of that other God and that other Law which can be found in scripture.
This dichotomy is laid out in the Letter to Hebrews, where we inevitably learn
once again that the Law of Moses comes from angels, but that salvation comes through
the “Son.” And, accordingly, this dichotomy is laid out in the form of two
priest-hoods: there is the order of Melchizedek, and there is the order
of Aaron. One is spiritual and eternal; the other is fleshly and temporal
(see below).
The author of Hebrews has made some
intriguing statements about the Law under Moses/Aaron that demonstrates that
this writer was not a worshipper of YHWH, and that he did not believe that the
Law came from the supreme Being. Let me begin this presentation by quoting a series
of passages from the text which shows the development of this theme.
Hebrews 1:1–4, (OT quotations in passage
below are marked in italics)
“God,
who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers
by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [a] Son, whom he
hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (in
Greek: “Aions”);
Who being the
brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding
all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins,
sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better
than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than
they.
For unto which of
the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten
thee? (Ps. 2:7) And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to
me a Son? (2 Sam. 7:14) And again, when he bringeth in the firstborn into
the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. (?) And
of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a
flame of fire?” (Ps. 104:4)
First let us note the unorthodox
rhetoric that appears at the very beginning of this treatise. Here the “Son” is
the agent by which “God” (ho Theos) created the “worlds.” What the Greek
text literally says is that the Son (or a Son) is the agent by which God
created the “Aions.” In the King James the word “Aions” has been translated as
“worlds.” But in Genesis there is no statement that God created “worlds” or
even “ages.” In the ancient Hellenistic world the word aion was also another
name for a god; and Chronos (Saturn) was often referred to by the name “Aion.”
In Gnostic tradition the word “aion” was used to identify “Sophia” and other
primeval beings that existed prior to the physical universe. This theme
involving the aions is developed accordingly in the Nag Hammadi treatise Melchizedek.
Also, in an unorthodox manner, this
writer denies that the Son spoke to the prophets, but that “God” spoke to them
in “divers manners.” It is only later, in the “last days”, that the Son spoke
to the church. This is actually consistent with Gnostic doctrine which also
denies that Jesus spoke in the Old Testament; and that He spoke to the Apostles
only, and revealed the Gospel through them. In Gnostic tradition, God is
revealed to the prophets only through Sophia. The Catholic Father Irenaeus
informs his readers that the Valentinians referred to Sophia as the spiritual
“Lord” of the Old Testament (Against Heresies, 1.5.3; see my article Gnostics
and the OT).
It seems to me that the Letter to
Hebrews displays an unorthodox statement of theology right at the beginning.
But this is just the beginning; and the author continues his line of thought by
developing a dichotomy between the Son and the “angels.” Most interesting is
that this writer begins to appeal to the Old Testament in order to validate
this dichotomy for his Hebrew readers. As we read through the relevant passages
it will become obvious that the end purpose of quoting the Old Testament, in
this case, is to persuade the “Hebrews” that the Law was given by “angels” and
not God, and that the Hebrews should look to the Son, not the angels.
The plain statement by the writer that
the Law was given by angels and not God appears in Hebrews 2:2f. Here the
writer confronts his readers with an unusual question:
“For
if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression received a
just penalty, how shall we escape, if we neglect the great salvation which was
first spoken by the Lord…[with] God bearing witness both with signs and
wonders?”
Here it is stated that the Law is the
“word spoken by angels” and that it is the angels who punish mankind; whereas
the Lord Jesus is the one sent by God for salvation.
In the balance of Hebrews 2 the author
goes on to explain that “Jesus” is not one of the angels, and that the “angels”
will not rule in the “world to come” (Heb. 2:5). The angels rule in this world
and they judge everyone by the Law. The writer tells his readers, quoting
Psalms 8:4–6, that Jesus was made “a little lower than the angels” and that his
purpose is to taste death for every man.
“For
truly he did not give aid to angels but he took on the seed of Abraham…that
through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the
devil. And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime
subject to bondage.” (Hebrews 2:14–16)
In the passage above we can see that a
connection has been drawn between the angels, the Law, bondage, death, and the devil.
According to Hebrews Jesus has not come to assist the angels who imparted and
enforce the Law. Jesus comes to assist man in order to save man from the
angels, the Law, and from him who has the “power of death, that is, the devil”
(diabolon). This is really an amazing passage; especially when we
compare this to what Paul wrote regarding the Law. Again, we know from
Galatians 3:19 that Paul said that the Law of Moses was “ordained by angels”
and that obeying the Law will lead one away from Christ (Gal. 5:4). And in 2
Corinthians 3:6–7 Paul referred to the Law of Moses “written in stone” as the
“ministry of death.” Paul believed that the Law was an instrument of death and
that no grace or salvation could be gained through it. Let us now note that in
the Law of Moses we learn that death began with Jehovah. In Genesis
Indeed in the Old Testament it is
Jehovah and no one else who slays with death all those who transgress the Law
(see my article On God and Justice). In 2 Corinthians
Next we move on to our writer’s
inevitable subversion of the Mosaic tradition. He begins by elevating Jesus to
a position above Moses:
“Wherefore,
holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High
Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus: Who was faithful to the one that
appointed him, as Moses was faithful in all his house. For [Jesus] was counted
worthy of more glory than Moses, in as much as he who built the house has more
honor than the house. For every house is built by some man; but he that built
all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:1–4)
At first glance this passage seems to
say something “orthodox.” But how can this follow on the unorthodox themes we
have noticed in chapter 2? Let us examine the language carefully. The passage
seems to say that Moses was faithful in the house of the same God that
appointed Jesus. Yet in chapter 2 we learn that the Law was spoken by angels; which
is an idea that is affirmed by both St. Stephen and
In the literal Greek Moses is described
in verse 5 as a witness to things that were spoken in the future, of Christ.
But let us consider the real meaning of this in light of statements which have
already been made. Again, Hebrews denies that the Law was spoken by God as the
OT says. (And again, the actual theology of the OT is inconsistent. Some
passages say YHWH is the supreme God; other passages imply he is subordinate,
an angel.) In other articles I have documented where Paul inverts the meaning
of Old Testament scripture in order to extract a different, antithetical
meaning. Example: in Romans 10:1–4, Paul quotes Dt. 30:12–14 as an appeal to
the grace that comes through Christ, whereas the passage is in fact an
injunction to keep the Law. Another example is where Paul says that Abraham was
justified by faith; but Genesis 17 says that Abraham accepted circumcision as a
sign of his faith. Paul uses Abraham to argue against the practice of
circumcision whereas Genesis 17 says the diametric opposite. In a similar way,
the author of Hebrews says that Moses was a witness to Christ, but this can
only be accepted in a subversive sense: in the sense that Jesus represents the
divine antithesis to everything that Moses established. Thus we read in Hebrews
10:1 that the Law of Moses is a “shadow of good things to come.” But in reality
the Law is not those good things, as Paul said. The Law brings death; it is the
ministry of death. It is the darkness and the void that Jesus comes to
fill with Light. It is because of the Law, and the angelic rulers, that we need
Jesus, the Savior.
Because the Law is a “shadow of good
things to come” Jesus is not a high-priest of the Law like Moses and Aaron. For
this reason Jesus is declared to be a “priest forever after the order of
Melchizedek. … Called of God a high-priest after the order of Melchizedek.”
(Heb. 5:6, 10)
But with the above words our author
reveals his criticism toward the Hebrews, which in turn reveals the Gnostic
paradigm of this treatise:
“…of
Melchizedek. Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing
ye are dull of hearing.
For when at this
time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again those
things which are the first oracles of God; and are become such as have need of
milk and not solid food. For everyone who needs milk is unskillful in the word
of righteousness: for he is a babe.
But strong food
belongs to them that are mature (teleion: initiated); even those
who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and
evil.” (Hebrews 5:10–14;
Here our writer gets to the deeper
esoteric truth that is behind this treatise, and is symbolized by Melchizedek.
Those who are part of the priest-hood of Melchizedek, and are initiated into
its Mysteries (i.e. secrets), have the knowledge to discern both good and
evil, and to understand that the God of Moses, and of the Law, is not
really the true God; and that God is really something much higher which has
been revealed in Christ, and is symbolized in Melchizedek. This has
absolutely nothing to do with Mosaic tradition, or circumcision or sacrifices.
This all pertains to that other God that is also alluded to in the Old
Testament, and which later Gnostic tradition identified with Sophia. (The
historic precedent for Sophia begins with the Hellenistic text in the
Septuagint: The Wisdom of Solomon; see my article Gnostics and the
Old Testament.)
Stated simply, Melchizedek is the priest
of another God than the God that Moses has erected over the Israelites.
Melchizedek is a symbol of the higher God, and the higher mysticism, and the
higher piety which has been lost in the organized religion of the Mosaic
tradition. We also learn that the elementary gospel teachings regarding Jesus
are themselves an exoteric teaching, and not the whole truth. Here we continue
with our writer’s thoughts:
“Therefore
leaving the elementary principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us move unto perfection
(teleioteta: initiation); not laying again the foundation of repentance
from dead works (the Law), and of faith toward God; of the doctrine of
baptisms, and laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of
eternal judgment…” (Hebrews 6:1f., Pagels, ibid. pg. 148)
Let us note here that “repentance from
dead works” meaning the Law, and “faith toward God”, are actually elementary
principles. These are the teachings for beginners. But the end is the
initiation, where one achieves the spiritual realization, and where the deeper
esoteric teachings are imparted. This leads to knowledge, or as Paul says, “gnosis.”
The initiates in the order of Melchizedek possess a knowledge of God which
transcends faith, and has the wisdom to distinguish good from evil in
opposition to the angelic powers. Like Paul, the initiates have the power to
reject the Law, and to expose the angels for what they are. The good Father is
known, and the god of this world is exposed; and the initiates triumph
over the power of the devil. These are the high mysteries of the Gospel
which have been suppressed in “orthodox” tradition for centuries. And certainly
this does not involve a rejection of the Old Testament, but a renewed
understanding of the complex theological and spiritual truths that are
concealed in these books. For the Gnostic, both the false god and the true God
will be revealed.
For the author of Hebrews, these truths
are signified in the notion that the Law has become obsolete through the
Gospel, and that no initiation can be achieved through the Law; which is to say
that God cannot be known through the Law (cf. Paul, Gal. 4:8–10). Thus our
writer says,
“If
therefore perfection (teleiosis) were through the Levitical priest-hood
(for under it the people received the Law) what further need was there that
another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not after the
order of Aaron?
… for after the
similitude of Melchizedek their arises another priest, who is made not after
the Law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life (Ps.
110:4).
… For there is a
disannulling of the commandment going before the weakness of the
unprofitableness thereof. For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing of
a better hope did, by which we draw close to God.” (Hebrews 7:11, 15–19)
Here our author exposes the
ineffectiveness of the Law. No one can achieve initiation through it. The
commandment is weak and unprofitable. One cannot draw close to God through the
Law. In turn we can compare these statements to what “Jesus” said about the
Law—according to Matthew. Here a young noble asked Jesus: “Master, what good
thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” Jesus answers that he must
“keep the commandments” (Mt.
Here again is more from our writer
regarding the inferior nature of the Law—which in Matthew “Jesus” says came
from God (Mt. 15:4). Our writer goes on to tell us that an oath has been sworn
to Jesus for a better covenant which is symbolized by the order of Melchizedek:
“By so much was Jesus made the surety of a better covenant” (Hebrews 7:21–22,
Psalms 110:1–4).
We are also told that Jesus’s
priest-hood, on the order of Melchizedek, is an office at the right hand of God
in the heavens; and that the earthly priest-hood is really a material copy of
the order in heaven: “who serve as an example and shadow of heavenly things”
(Heb. 8:5; cf. 9:23–24). This in turn resembles the Platonic, dualistic
rhetoric of Paul as found in 2 Cor. 4:18, “We look not to the things which are
seen; but the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are
temporal; but that which is not seen is eternal.” In both of these passages we
see the Hellenistic thought of the Hellenist church. And for the Hellenists
this dualism represents the mystical realization of better promises: “But now
he (Jesus) has obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the
mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises”
(Heb. 8:6).
Our author continues in verse 7, “For if
that first covenant had been faultless, should no place have been found
for the second.” (Emphasis added)
Let us consider the weight of these
words. Our author has stated in the above passages that the “commandments” were
weak and unprofitable; and he now adds that the “first covenant” was at fault.
After reading these words we must ask the question: Does this man really
believe that this covenant was given by God as we learn in the books of Moses?
The answer is no. This writer believed something radically different.
Inevitably he appeals to Jeremiah 31:31–34, where the concept of a “new
covenant” is mentioned. But in Jeremiah there is no mention of the notion that
the covenant given by God was flawed. The reason given in Jeremiah is that
In saying that the “Law made nothing
perfect” our writer is saying that God cannot be known or served through the
Law. Nowhere in Jeremiah or anywhere else in the OT are these statements made
about the Law. What we do learn—as Gnostics—is that there is another God
mentioned in scripture who never gave a law or required rituals as that
described of YHWH in the books of Moses. It is in this paradox that our blessed
writer finds the truth. Melchizedek is the symbol of that truth. —jw
Notes
1] J. Robinson, The
Nag Hammadi Library, HarperCollins (1990), pp. 440–1, 108f.; NHC: IX, I,
5–6; II, I, 7–8. Note also that “Melchizedek” contains a reference to the
“children of Seth” which probably refers to Gnostic/Sethian tradition.
2] A. Harnack, Marcion,
pg. 10. A. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, pg. x. R. Grant, Gnosticism
and Early Christianity, pg. 56ff. See also my article Gnostics and the
Old Testament.
3] Margaret
Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God, pg. 5f. See
also #4 below (link)
4] The
conservative theologian Michael Heiser offers a scholarly discussion of the
“text critical problems” in the variant readings of Dt. 32:8 and why some
manuscripts read “sons of God” or “angels of God” rather than “sons of
5] The Law of
Moses is mentioned in the OT books of Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Kings, 2
Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel and Malachi. In this case the books of
Joshua through Nehemiah are an expansion on the history of
6] There have
been widespread disagreements among clerics and scholars as to who wrote the
Epistle to Hebrews. It is generally agreed that Paul can be ruled out. Some
scholars have suggested that the writer was Barnabas or Apollos (cf. Gal.
7] Even in the
books of Moses these older polytheistic elements are found. The Hebrew of
Genesis 1:1 reads literally that the “gods” created the heavens and the earth
and said “let us create man in our image.” Genesis 2:4f. contains the
monotheistic version of the creation with the one God “YHWH.” The books of
Moses are themselves a hodge-podge of different elements. These books do not
wholly originate from a monotheistic/Yahwist culture, but were adopted by a
monotheist group at a later time. To this day “orthodox” Christians and Jews
read one God into these books: but the books themselves are a patchwork of both
monotheist and polytheist elements. Thus Genesis 1 is a poorly disguised pagan
creation story that probably originated from
By James M. West. Copyright © November 11,
2008; revised
E-mail: ogdood@yahoo.com