Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan

According to Reza Aslan, Jesus was a guerrilla leader who wanted to drive Rome out of Palestine and he points to the scriptures as evidence: "I came not to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51), "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" (Luke 22:36), "From the days of John the Baptist until now the Kingdom of God has been coming violently, and the violent ones try to snatch it away" (Matthew 11:12, Luke 16:16).

According to Aslan, when Jesus said the Kingdom of God was near, what he meant was the expulsion of Rome and the establishment of an independent Jewish state. After all, the god Jesus worshipped was the warrior god of the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 15:3), blood-splattered (Isaiah 63:3), angry, and genocidal. The god who repeatedly told the Jews to violently expel foreigners from their land and bathe in their blood (Psalms 68:21-23). As a Jew, Jesus despised gentiles. He referred to them as dogs (Matthew 15:21-28) and instructed his disciples not to preach to them (Matthew 10:5).

When Jesus speaks of the rich being made poor and the poor being made wealthy, he is speaking as a revolutionary who wants to overthrow the social order. The reason he spoke in parables that no one could understand was to keep his sedition hidden from Rome. Jesus also told everyone to keep the fact that he was a messiah secret to avoid Roman execution (Mark 4:11-12), yet he knew the fate that awaited all would be kings such as himself, so he also repeatedly predicted his own death. (Aslan acknowledges these predictions could have been placed into Jesus's mouth after the fact, but he thinks they are genuine historical sayings of Jesus simply because there are so many of them!)

Aslan's main evidence that Jesus was a zealot was the fact that he was crucified. Rome almost exclusively reserved crucifixition for insurrectionists. Usually, the seditionists were executed first, then their bodies were put up on the cross as an example to any other would be rebels. The men crucified to either side of Jesus are called "lestai" in the gospels (except in Luke), which literally translates as "bandits" but was a term Rome used for rebels.

Additionally, the titulus nailed above Jesus declaring him the "King of the Jews" indicates that this was his crime. Since Jews were subject to Rome, declaring yourself King of the Jews or Messiah, another kingly title, was the same as calling for an overthrow of Roman rule. The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey (or two donkeys as Matthew has it) was a clear indication that Jesus thought he was meant to be king since David and other Jewish kings in the Hebrew Bible rode donkeys into Jerusalem to proclaim their kingship.

Jesus was executed not only because he called himself Messiah (i.e., King of the Jews), but also because he threatened to destroy the Temple (Mark 13:2, Matthew 26:61), which, as a symbol of Roman power in Palestine, was the same as threatening Rome itself. Not only did Jesus say he would destroy the Temple, but he also drove out the money changers with a whip and prevented anyone from entering (Luke 19:45-48, Matthew 21:12-16, Mark 11:15-18, John 2:13-16). Since the Temple was the center of Judaism, it was gigantic; and since many zealots both before and after Jesus captured it to make political statements, it was patrolled by numerous armed guards. The only way Jesus could have taken over the Temple would have been with the help of an army.

As a revolutionary zealot, Jesus was not unique. There were several men just like him both before and after this time who wanted to throw off the shackles of Rome and assassinate the wealthy priests of the Temple. Aslan also tells us that the miracles performed by Jesus aren't unique either. Many other magicians also healed the sick and raised the dead at this time.

Aslan tells us that Jesus began as one of John the Baptist's disciples. After his baptism (or lack of baptism as the gospel of John has it), Jesus went out into the wilderness, the place John the Baptist had just emerged from, not to be tempted by satan, but to learn from John. The first words of Jesus's public ministry echo John: "The time is fulfilled. The Kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe in the good news" (Mark 1:15). The first action in Jesus's ministry is to start baptizing people like John did (John 3:22-23). Jesus's first disciples, Andrew and Philip, were originally John's disciples (John 1:35-37). Jesus also calls his enemies a "brood of vipers" a phrase he picked up from John (Matthew 12:34).

In the gospels, groups such as the Pharisees, the scribes, the chief priests, and the elders are lumped together when in reality they were separate and distinct groups. The depiction of the Pharisees in the gospels is quite contradictory. They are Jesus's chief opponents, yet he is also on friendly terms with them. It was a Pharisee who warned Jesus that Herod wanted to kill him (Luke 13:31), a Pharisee who helped bury him after his execution (John 19:39-40), and a Pharisee who saved the lives of his disciples after he ascended to heaven (Acts 5:34). Jesus dined with Pharisees, lived among them, and even counted a few as his disciples, yet they are also the main bad guys of the gospels.

Aslan points out that the gospel's depiction of Pilate couldn't be further from the truth. Josephus records an instance in which Pilate pilfers the Temple treasury to pay for the Jerusalem aqueduct, then sends his troops to slaughter the Jews when they complain about it. The Pilate of history executed so many people on a daily basis, he didn't have the time to question them individually as the gospels say he did with Jesus. This is a far cry from the gospel depiction of Pilate who doesn't want to execute Jesus, but is forced to by the Sanhedrin. In reality, the Sanhedrin couldn't force Rome to do anything. They were completely at Pilate's mercy. (Jesus's trial by the Sanhedrin is also not historical. The Sanhedrin was not permitted to meet at night, meet during the Passover, meet on the eve of the Sabbath, or meet casually in the courtyard of the high priest, all of which the gospels claim happened.)

Like the hundreds of other scholars who write books about the historical Jesus, Reza Aslan highlights the parts of the Gospels that confirm his theory and dismisses or reinterprets the parts that disagree with it. Therefor, Aslan takes the violent sayings of Jesus at face value, but he reinterprets the peaceful sayings like "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" to make them fit his picture of Jesus. For example, Aslan says the point of the Good Samaritan parable wasn't that the command to love your neighbor includes non-Jews, but rather the real point is that the Temple priests who didn't help the victim on the side of the road are evil and must be overthrown.

Aslan is far from the first scholar to propose that Jesus was a revolutionary. In the end, this is basically a summary of other scholar's work and gives us little that is new. But how historically reliable is Aslan's depiction of Jesus?

"Granted, writing a biography of Jesus of Nazareth is not like writing a biography of Napoleon Bonaparte. The task is somewhat akin to putting together a massive puzzle with only a few of the pieces in hand; one has no choice but to fill in the rest of the puzzle based on the best, most educated guesses of what the completed image should look like." (Zealot, page xxxi)

And guess Reza Aslan does. However, you wouldn't know it from the tone of this book. Aslan presents his speculations as if they are fact. True, he sometimes presents opposing viewpoints in his endnotes, but far too often he simply tells us "most scholars agree" as if that settles the matter. As Leonardo da Vinci once said, "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory."

Assuming Jesus existed and wasn't just a mythological figure who was historicized, what can we know about him? Some ancient historians such as Josephus and Tacitus mention Jesus, but even if these references aren't the interpolations they appear to be, they come too late to be relevant. Really, the only source of information we have about the historical Jesus is the New Testament, and therein lies the problem.

Aslan tells us in his introduction that, "the gospels are not, nor were they ever meant to be, a historical documentation of Jesus's life." Incredibly, he then goes on to paint a picture of the historical Jesus using the gospels as his source! This is akin to using the Iliad to tell us about the historical Achilles. Aslan removes the parts of the gospels which are obviously not historical and declares that we can trust that what remains is true. This is an approach no historian outside the field of Biblical studies would ever use. Can you imagine a serious historian telling us that while the supernatural aspects of the Odyssey are fictitious, everything else that's described really happened because nobody would have made it up?

Aslan tells us Jesus wasn't really born in Bethlehem. The gospels just said he was to fulfill prophecy. Fair enough. But he concludes from this that Jesus had to have been born in Nazareth, even though the gospels say Jesus grew up there to fulfill prophecy as well! (See Matthew 2:23.) Aslan tells us there's no evidence Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus: no mention in any histories, no appearance on any map. (He could have also added that there is no archaeological evidence that it was populated at the time of Jesus.) Aslan takes this lack of evidence as evidence that Nazareth must have been a really small town! He doesn't even seem aware of the possibility that it's a second century anachronism like many others found in the New Testament.

For example, one of Jesus's apostles is called Simon the Zealot, even though the Zealot party did not exist until the second century. Aslan explains that this is not an anachronism, Simon was called a Zealot because he was particularly zealous! He doesn't say how he knows this. He's probably just assuming the gospels are first century creations. I suppose this is possible, but the job of the historian is to discover not what is possible (almost anything) but what is most probable. Given all the other second century anachronisms in the gospels (Jesus being called a rabbi, Pilate being called a Procurator, the existence of Galilean synagogues, Jesus referring to the murder of Zechariah son of Berachiah as if it had happened in the past, followers of Jesus being anti-Semitic, the description of the Bar Kokhba revolt in Mark 13, etc.), it's most likely that this is one more second century anachronism.

Aslan tells us Luke's nativity story is not historical: the census of Quirinius which took place in 6 AD did not include the region of Galilee, so no one from Nazareth would have taken part. Also, the Romans held the census for taxation purposes, so it would have been ridiculous to have everyone return to their ancestral homeland. The contradictory nativity story of Matthew is also not historical. While the numerous sins of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, are well documented, there is no record that he ordered the slaughter of infants in Bethlehem. Despite the fact the nativity stories are obvious fabrications, Aslan tells us Matthew did correctly record the time of Jesus's birth!

Aslan acknowledges that the early Christians (such as Paul) were not interested in Jesus's life, only his death and resurrection, and he also acknowledges that Jesus wasn't the only god to die and come back to life, yet, incredibly, he still believes the gospel accounts (written long after Jesus died) preserve historical information about him. He acknowledges that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark and that "the gospel of John is little more than Pauline theology in narrative form", yet if all four gospels agree on something, he claims it must have really happened! This is like comparing all the various Hercules stories and declaring all points of overlap are historical.

Aslan points out that the story of Jesus is based on figures from the Hebrew Bible such as Elijah and Moses. However, instead of recognizing this for the literary borrowing that it most certainly is, he thinks that the historical Jesus intentionally patterned his life on the prophets! This is possible, but given that the entire gospel narrative start to finish is based on different parts of the Hebrew Bible, it's far more likely the gospels are a midrash of the Old Testament rather than works of history. I suppose Aslan should be given credit for treating the gospels with more skepticism than the average fundamentalist, but if he wants people to call him a scholar, he needs to be much more skeptical.

Aslan began his book with a vivid description of the Temple written in the second person to make you feel like you're really there. His first chapter actually wouldn't be out of place in a historical novel:

"The money changers will also collect the half-shekel Temple tax that all adult males must pay to preserve the pomp and spectacle of all you see around you: the mountains of burning incense and the ceaseless sacrifices, the wine libations and the first-fruits offering, the Levite choir belting out psalms of praise and the accompanying orchestra thrumming lyres and banging cymbals."

His also gives a lush description of Jerusalem later on:

"The purple vineyards whose vines twisted and crawled across the level plains, the well-tilled fields and viridescent orchards bursting with almond and fig and olive trees, the green beds of papyrus floating lazily along the Jordan River--the Jews not only knew and deeply loved every feature of this consecrated land, they laid claim to all of it."

I was about to say Aslan missed his calling as a novelist, but according to his bio at the end of the book, he has a master's degree in fiction, he is the editor of a literary magazine, and he is currently Associate Professor of Creative Writing at UC Riverside. Since this book is mainly educated guesses and speculation mixed with a dash of history, I wonder why he didn't just write a historical novel in the first place.

Jesus the Magician by Morton Smith

Scholars in search of a historical Jesus usually assume the miraculous stories are later additions and that the real Jesus was either a sage dispensing wisdom or a prophet preaching the end of the world. However, Morton Smith believes the opposite is true.

"Teachers of the law were not, in this period, made over into miracle workers. Neither were the authors of apocalyptic prophecies [...] but a miracle worker could easily come to be thought a prophet and an authority on the Law." (p. 16)

The miracle stories in the gospels show signs of reworking, proof that they were not later additions, but rather part of the original story. There are literally thousands of teachers of the Law found in rabbinic literature, but none of them are comparable to Jesus. This is because he was not a teacher of the Law. He was a miracle worker who later had legal sayings attributed to him.

Jesus was also not a prophet in the Old Testament sense. The Old Testament prophets did not forgive sins, perform exorcisms, and with few exceptions did not heal. Moses and Elisha healed leprosy, Elisha and Elijah raised boys from the dead, but only Jesus and the magicians of his time cured fever, blindness, lameness, paralysis, catalepsy, hemorrhage, wounds, and poison. In fact, Jesus twice refuses to perform the miracles of the prophets (compare II Kings 1:10 with Luke 9:54-55 and II Kings 6:15-17 with Matthew 26:52-4). The miraculous escapes, transfiguration, walking on water, eucharist, and "I am" sayings of Jesus have parallels in magical practice, but not in the Old Testament.

Another common mistake many biblical scholars make is relying on Christian sources. To get a complete picture of who Jesus was, we must also consider what critics said of him. You wouldn't write a biography about a dictator using only what his propaganda said.

Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?

(John 8:48)

Since history is written by the victors, the texts we are left with are mainly Christian. In fact, the Roman Emperor Constantine ordered all books by "heretics" (Christians who held minority opinions) and pagan works critical of Jesus to be destroyed in the early 300's AD. However, many early Christians quoted from these critical works in order to denounce them, so we do have some idea of what they said. Some criticisms of Jesus are even preserved in the New Testament.

Jesus is accused of being a drunkard and a glutton (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34). His own family accused him of being crazy (Mark 3:21) and did not believe in him (John 7:5). He is called the "son of Mary" (Mark 6:3) rather than the son of Joseph, which means he was born out of wedlock. He is also accused of being possessed by a demon, i.e. being crazy (John 7:20, John 8:48, 52, John 10:20). This is why is he told to heal himself (Luke 4:23). A demon apparently drove him out into the wilderness (Mark 1:12, "demon" and "spirit" were interchangeable terms in common usage). He was even accused of being Beelzebul.

It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household! (Matthew 10:25)

And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.” So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan?[...] In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.” (Mark 3:22-30)

Interestingly, the only unforgivable sin in Christianity is accusing Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebul rather than by the Holy Spirit. The fact that this is such a big deal indicates that it was the most important rumor about Jesus his followers wished to dispel.

Jesus is accused before Pilate of being a "doer of evil" (John 18:30) which in Roman law codes refers to magicians. Jesus is often called "one who leads astray" or "deceiver" which also refer to his being a magician.

After John the Baptist died, the Gospels tells us that many people believed Jesus was John raised from the dead (Mark 6:14). This doesn't make much sense except when we look at magical beliefs of the time in which the spirit of someone who dies a violet or unjust death can be summoned by a magician, such as Jesus.

In third century Smyrna, Christian necromancers summoned the spirit of Jesus because of his violet death by crucifixion. The Samaritan magician Simon as well as Saint Paul (Galatians 2:20, Romnas 15:19, 1 Corinthians 5:13) also summoned the spirit of Jesus to perform miracles, so it's plausible Jesus was using John's spirit the same way.

Jewish accounts of Jesus repeat the accusations found in the New Testament (that he was mad, demon-possessed, a magician). They also accused him of cutting magic Egyptian marks into his flesh, which could be a reference to either scarification or tattooing. (Matthew admits that Jesus was visited by magi (magicians) and lived in Egypt, although only in his infancy.) Magicians of the time did write spells on their flesh and instructions for doing so are found in magical papyri of the time. Paul tells us he was tattooed or branded with the marks of Jesus in this way (Galations 6:17).

Rabbinic writings speak disapprovingly of magicians using the name of Jesus ben Pantera to heal and the Babylonian Talmud (B. Sanhedrin 43a) tells us Jesus was stoned for practicing magic. Jesus was also said to be the student of the magician Joshua ben Perahya who lived 80 BC. (B. Sotah 47a, B. Sanhedrin 107b, P. Hagigah II.2(77d), P. Sanhedrin VI.13(23c))

The Roman historian Suetonius said Christians practiced magic. Lucan, a Roman poet, wrote of a witch who not only summoned a soul from the underworld, but forced it to reenter its dead body, much as Jesus had done.  The Christian apologist Justin Martyr counters claims that Jesus was a magician. The writings of Celsus have been destroyed, but Origen quotes from him at length in order to counter his claims.

Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God. (Celsus, quoted by Origin in Against Celsus 1:28,38)

Celsus gives us a different account of Jesus than that found in the Gospels. Jesus was conceived by a soldier named Panthera. He had 10 disciplines instead of 12, and he was betrayed by more than one of them. He said that Jesus was small and ugly (Against Celsus 6:75). Origin agrees that Jesus was indeed ugly, but that his appearance was to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 53:1-3. Celsus also accuses Jesus of being a wicked man under the influence of an evil spirit (Against Celsus I:68).

The Mandaeans, a sect in modern day Iraq that worships John the Baptist, claim Jesus was an evil magician based on their ancient texts. Also, Jesus was sometimes identified with the Samaritan magician Simon. However, it's unknown exactly how old the Samaritan and Mandean traditions are.

Ancient magical material, which is archeologically datable, shows that the name of Jesus was used in magic spells during his lifetime (see also Acts 19:13). Also, of the three oldest visual representations of the crucifixion, two are found on magical gems.

The oldest visual representation of the crucifixion, a graffito scratched on the plaster of a school room on the Palatine Hill in Rome, depicts a crucified figure with the head of a donkey. There was a long standing legend that the god of the Jews was a donkey or had a donkey head. Josephus refutes this claim (Against Apion II:80), although later Jews accused Christians of the same thing.

A graffito drawn in Carthage around 200 AD depicts a figure with donkey ears and a hoof wrapped in a toga holding a book with the inscription, "The god of the Christians." A little bone crucifix of a crucified donkey has also been found in Montagnana, although it can't be dated. The Christian writer Minucius Felix refutes the claim that the god of the Christians had a donkey head. The association of the Jewish and Christian gods with the donkey may have something to do with the Egyptian god Seth sometimes depicted on magical gems with a donkey head and called Iao (Yahweh).

Before the fourth century, the name of Jesus was used in various magic spells (conjuration, exorcism, cursing, love charms, spells to improve memory or receive revelations through dreams, etc.) by both Christians and pagans. These survive in fragmentary amulets, lead tablets and magical papyri. Jesus has continually been depicted as a magician in Christian art, complete with magic wand, including a gold glass plate in the Vatican library.

New Testament scholars often claim that Judaism was sealed off from the outside world and therefore early Christianity could not have had any pagan influences. The opposite is true. The ancient Israelites had never controlled all of Palestine. While the Jews had overrun most of Palestine including Galilee and forcibly converted the semitic peoples living there between 125 BC to 75 BC, this conversion was only skin deep. The region had long been influenced by Phoenician and Egyptian beliefs (Egyptian amulets are frequently found in archeological digs). Persian influence lead to the Jews adopting monotheism and demonology. Also Greek beliefs and practices were familiar everywhere. In the 360 years between the time Alexander the Great had conquered Palestine and Jesus got baptized, the Jews were ruled by either the Greeks, the Romans, or Roman agents for 320 of those years. It's impossible for Christianity not to have been influenced by paganism.

In the magical papyri, the name of the Jewish god Yahweh is used more than three times as often as any other deity. The fact that the Jews practiced magic is proven by the discovery of the magical book Sefer ha-Razim (The Book of Secrets). The Old Testament speaks of the 'obot ("divining spirits" or "spirits of the dead", see Isaiah 8:19, 19:3, 29:4, 1 Samuel 28, Leviticus 19:31, 20:6,27, 2 Kings 23:24) who are equated with gods.

Solomon was said to control demons in Rabbinic literature (B. Gittin 68a-b, the midrashim on Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes), the writings of Josephus (Antiquities VIII:45-49), and in the romance The Testament of Solomon. Solomon controlled the demons through an amulet engraved with the secret name of Yahweh.

The term "son of god" was synonymous with "magician" and thus Jesus is almost exclusively called "son of god" when performing miracles. Apollonius of Tyana was another magician who lived the same time as Jesus who shared a lot in common with him (he was the son of a god, performed miracles, taught morals, had disciples, rose from the dead, etc.) Early Christian apologists such as Eusebius had difficulty explaining why Jesus should be preferred over Apollonius.

Jesus cured a deaf man by spit and a magic word (Mark 7:32-35) he also cured blindness by spit, although it took two tries (Mark 8:23-26). He used a magic phrase to raise a girl from the dead (Mark 5:41, Peter also uses this phrase in Acts 9:40 although he mistakenly uses the Aramaic word talitha (girl) as the proper name Tabitha!).

The other gospel writers were embarrassed by this apparent magic so they took it out of their versions. They couldn't remove references to Jesus being the son of god since it was essential to their religion, but since it was a common claim of magicians, they have other people call Jesus the son of god (he only says it of himself when forced to, see Mark 14:60-62). The gospels almost completely remove any reference to Jesus being a Samaritan since they were associated with magic.

Magic was a common practice at the time (see Mark 9:38, Acts 19:19) and numerous Christian magical papyri have been discovered. Jesus often gives instructions for the proper way to perform healings and exorcisms in the gospels. In Matthew, magi (magicians) give gifts to the infant Jesus, declaring him the ultimate magician by implication. They then go home by a different route (Matthew 2:12) since after meeting with a supernatural being, you should go home by a different road (Sefer ha-Rezim I:5)

At the baptism of Jesus, a spirit descends upon him in the form of a dove. This scene is not based on anything from the Old Testament or rabbinic tradition, it could only come from the realm of magic. The magical papyri give spells magicians can use to entrap a spirit. This way, they can perform miracles immediately, by commanding the spirit, rather than reciting lengthy spells (The Magical Papyrus of Paris IV:2006, Sefer ha-Rezim I:5). Early Christians said the Samaritan magician Simon Magus performed his miracles by controlling the spirit of a murdered boy.

However, spirits of the dead were mainly used for harmful magic. Since Jesus was a healer, he would have used a supernatural being of a higher order than men. The Magical Papyrus of Paris gives instructions for how to command a god (I:54). It involves burning frankincense to summon a hawk, then burning myrrh to summon a god who comes down in the form of a star. Once the magician has control of the god, he can do things like make food and wine appear, stop evil demons, solidify water so that it can be walked upon, change shape, turn invisible, fly, calm wild beasts, read minds, know the future, etc. This god will also take the magician's spirit up into the air after he dies. The magical papyri also describe how to become a son of god. The Good Demon is invoked in Magical Papyrus of Paris XIII:784: "For I have taken to myself the power of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and of the great god-demon Iao Ablanathanalba." Iao is the Israelite god Yahweh, Ablanathanalba is a magical palindrome of uncertain meaning.

Jesus apparently uses his spirit servant to heal the centurion's servant (Luke 7:1-9) and had 72,000 angels at his command (Matthew 26:53). The spell for how to command such an angelic legion is found in Sefer ha-Rezim VI. Also, the manner in which Jesus obtained disciples corresponds to magical love spells to make someone forget their family and follow the magician. His disciples immediately drop what they're doing, not even bothering to put their fishing nets away, and follow him without so much as saying good bye to their families (Mark 1:16-20). Jesus didn't even permit a potential disciples to bury his father before following him (Matthew 8:22, Luke 9:60).

The exorcisms and healings of Jesus have a magical basis, including the belief that diseases were demons (Jesus commands a fever to leave Simon's mother-in-law as if it were a demon in Luke 4:38-39). Jesus also gives his disciples immunity from snakes and scorpions (Luke 10:19, Mark 16:18) another common magical spell.

Defixions are spells usually written on lead tablets or potsherds and buried by graves or thrown into water to destroy an enemy. One such addressed Osiris and other underworld gods and said "inasmuch as I give over to you Adeodatus the son of Cresconia, I ask you to punish him in the bed of punishment." Paul also uses the language of magic to "give over" his enemies to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:3, 1 Timothy 1:18-20).

It was common to enchant food so that whoever ate it would become possessed. Jesus seems to do this at the Last Supper. When asked who will betray him "Jesus answered, 'It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.' Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him." (John 13:26-27) This same principal seems to be at work with the Eucharist.

In addition to putting evil spirits into people, Jesus also put good spirits into people. He gives the Holy Spirit to his disciples by breathing on them (John 20:22). His disciples had the power to send out a spirit (their "peace") to a house and have it return to them (Luke 10:5-6). They could also place a curse by shaking the dust off their feet (Luke 10:10-12). Jesus had the keys to heaven which other magicians claimed to have.

Another magical parallel is found during the Transfiguration, when Jesus ascends a mountain, changes his form, and meets with the spirits of Moses and Elijah who foretell his future (Luke 9:28-31). Also, Jesus is able to become intangible (Luke 4:29-30, John 7:30, 44, 8:20, 59, 10:39) and invisible (Luke 24:31). Jesus often commands people to tell no one after he heals them, perhaps to keep the demon from coming back (Matthew 12:43).

The Greek term for "one who can get what he wants from the gods" is pray-er, that is, one who prays (Iliad 1:11,94; 5:78). The term was later replaced by magician. After all, both prayers and spells are two different names for the same thing.

Just like the magicians of his time, Jesus called god "Father" and believed he lived in the heavens. He also instructed his followers to pray only in secret, a common magical practice. Glorifying the Name of the god was also important. Compare John 17 where Jesus asks that his name be glorified because he glorified god's name with "Glorify me as I have glorified the Name of your son Horus!" (Papyri Graecae Magicae VII:504). "Thy will be done" was also a prayer used by magicians (PGM XII:189).

Initiates into the magical rites generally wore a particular costume, a linen cloth over their naked body (Mark 14:51, Papyri Graecae Magicae III:706, IV:88, 170, 3095, The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden III: 13, XXVIII:6, XXIX:23, Longer Gospel of Mark quoted by Clement of Alexandria).

Like all magicians of the time, Jesus was poor, and consequently commanded his rich followers to give all that they had to the poor, i.e. to him (Mark 10:21, Luke 12:33). He apparently made his living by performing miracles. One trick faith healers still use to this day is secretly finding out someone's name and pretending they know it through other worldly means. Jesus does this by sending his disciples to a town ahead of him (Luke 10:1). Then he impresses the rich people in that town by already knowing their names. Finally, he invites himself to stay at their house (Luke 19:1-5).

While I don't agree with everything Morton Smith writes in this book, I do agree that the New Testament makes more sense if Jesus was originally a magician who later had sayings and prophecies attributed to him rather than the other way around.

The Great Angel by Margaret Barker, Part 3

Chapter 7

The Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria lived during the time Christianity began, yet his writings don't match our preconceived notions of what Jewish thought at that time should have been. However, he was a spokesman for Judaism and his writings were popular enough to have survived, therefor any study of Christian origins has to take Philo's writings into account. Keep in mind also that the monotheistic rabbis didn't appear until later centuries.

Philo was not a monotheist, but rather believed in a second god called the Logos or the Word. This means many Jews of his time believed in a second god as well. This is not surprising since the Jews of Alexandria already had the Wisdom of Solomon.

Thy all powerful Word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne, into the midst of the land that was doomed, a stern warrior carrying a sharp sword of thy authentic command, and stood and filled all things with death, and touched heaven while standing on the earth. (The Wisdom of Solomon 18:15-16)

The destroyer with the great sword had originally been Yahweh (Exodus 12:12, 29). Philo elsewhere describes the Logos in terms used for Yahweh, meaning that for Philo and his Alexandrian community, Yahweh was the Word. Early Christian writers such as Clement of Alexandria and Theodotus equated Jesus with the Logos (see also the beginning of the Gospel of John), which isn't surprising since Jesus is equated with Yahweh (Lord) throughout the New Testament.

Philo also refers to the Logos as King, Shepherd, High Priest, and Firstborn Son among other titles. The Logos was the son of the Most High (Elyon). Philo also equates Logos with Wisdom, even though Logos was male and Wisdom female. This presents no difficulty for Wisdom seems to be the female aspect of Logos just as she is the female aspect of Yahweh in the Old Testament.

The writings of Philo and the apocalypticists clearly point to an alternate form of Judaism which was polytheistic. Just because Deuteronomistic monotheism later came to dominate Jewish thought doesn't mean it always had.

Chapter 8

In the Targums (Jewish translations/commentary on the Bible written in Aramaic) the word Memra is used to refer to the Word of God. The Word of the New Testament is described in the same way as Philo's Logos and the Memra of the Targums (John 1, 1 John 1:1-2, Revelation 19:11-16, Hebrews 4:12, 2 Peter 3:5-7).

In the early centuries of Christianity, a main focus of rabbinic Judaism was to discredit the idea that there were two gods. According to the Mekhilta of R. Ishmael, this idea apparently came about due to two different appearances of Yahweh in Exodus. In Exodus 15:3, Yahweh is a man of war, indicating that he is a young warrior. In Exodus 24:10, Yahweh is giving Law, the activity of an old man. R. Ishmael tries to explain this apparent contradiction away by explaining that Yahweh can appear in different forms and he cites Daniel 7 as an example. It's a strange example to cite, however, since Daniel 7 portrays two distinct gods, the young warrior Yahweh and the Ancient of Days Elyon.

Chapter 9

Yahweh created sea monsters in Genesis 1:21, but some scriptures point to an earlier myth in which he battled them (Letter of Manasseh 3, see also Isaiah 51:9 in which Yahweh kills the sea dragon Rahab). Yahweh created the stars in Genesis 1:16 simply as sources of light, yet they sing in Job 38:7 along with the other sons of god. Although they are centuries later, gnostic writings appear to preserve the earlier form of Judaism including talk of sea monsters and angels.

Instead of making the usual assumption that gnosticism is a heretical form of Christianity, Margaret Barker takes a close look at the texts and finds that gnosticism has more in common with pre-Deuteronomic Judaism. Gnosticism is exactly what you'd expect to find if a group of Jews rejected the monotheistic reform and held onto the earlier beliefs. They grew to view Judaism as the enemy and the god of the Jews as evil, although they still believed in a good god. According to The Apocryphon of John, the Great Archon seduced Eve who then gave birth to two sons, the good Yave and the evil Eloim (Apocryphon of John II:1:24). Basilides taught that Christ came to destroy the God of the Jews.

There are many varieties of Gnostic thought, but in general, they believed that the god which created the world was not the only god, although he foolishly thought he was. There was another more powerful god, much like the relationship between El Elyon and Yahweh. One gnostic text points out that Yahweh admits he isn't the only god when he says that he is a jealous god. If there was no other god, why would he be jealous? (Apocryphon of John II:1:11-13)

The Gnostics also speak of a female aspect of god called Sophia who shared a lot in common with the Wisdom of the Bible. She was said to be the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden (Apocryphon of John II:1:22, Hypostatis of the Archons II:4:94, 1 Enoch 32:3-6, Proverbs 3:18).

Chapter 10

The early Christians identified El Elyon with the Father and Yahweh with the Son, or Jesus. The pseudo-Clementine writings contain a debate between Simon Magus and Simon Peter in which Simon Magus claims the God of the Jews was not the Most High God. Simon Peter counters that while each of the seventy two nations has a being called a god ruling over it, they are really angels mistaken for gods.

Early Christians, including Paul, referred to the God of the Jews, Yahweh, as the Son of God and identified him with Jesus. The Father was El Elyon, the Most High God, who created Yahweh. Anytime the Old Testament referred to Yahweh, the Christians took it as a reference to the pre-existent Jesus. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin cites numerous scriptures from the Old Testament which support the two gods theory.

The distinction between the Father and Son had begun to blur by the time of Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria, but Christians still believed there were two separate gods in the Old Testament. Hippolytus of Rome believed the Ancient of Days in Daniel was the Most High God, while the Son of Man was Jesus. Novatian read the Old Testament the same way.

Unlike modern translators, Eusebius read the Hebrew of Psalm 91:9 correctly: "You, O Yahweh, are my refuge, you have made Elyon your dwelling place." (Proof IX:7) Two distinct gods are clearly referenced, yet modern readings are based on what the translators think it should have said. Eusebius goes on to demonstrate that the Hebrew of Psalms 45:7 indicates the the Anointed One is a second god, not a priest: "Thou hast, O God, loved justice and hated impiety: therefore in return, O God, the highest and greater God, Who is also thy God hath anointed thee." (Proof IV:15)

The Angel in the Book of Revelation was Yahweh. He is the first and the last (Revelation 1:17). He could permit people to eat from the tree of life (2:7). He had the sharp sword of judgement (2:12). He was the Son of God (2:18). He had the seven spirits of God (3:1). He was also the Scribe of the Book of Life (3:5). Reveleation 3:14 (Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation) could be a reference to Amon who assisted in the creation (Proverbs 8:30).

Philo associated his Logos with the center of the menorah (which had only seven candles in the Old Testament, as opposed the the nine candles of the modern day menorah). The early Christian document The Shepherd of Hermas described the Son of God having three angels on his left and three on his right (Hermas Sim. ix:12:8) The psuedo-Cyprianic text The Threefold Fruit of the Christian Life tells us the Son of God was one of the seven angels (216-219). An engraved amythyst has been discovered bearing the names of the seven archangels: Raphael, Renel, Uriel, Ichtys, Michael, Gabriel, and Azael. Ichtys was the common acronym for Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour.

The Ascension of Isaiah has the second Lord (Jesus) sit on the right side of the throne of the first Lord (Elyon) with the angel of the Holy Spirit sitting on the left (Ascension of Isaiah 11:32-33). In 2 Enoch 24:1, this Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel. Jewish tradition (Genesis Rabbah 78:1) held that while the other angels were insignificant, Michael and Gabriel did not change. There was even an early version of the trinity which was composed of Christos, Michael and Gabriel which can be recognized in epitaphs, amulets, amphorae, and seal stones dating back to the fourth century.

Origen speaks of a similar Jewish tradition in which God has a masculine aspect called the Word and a feminine aspect called the Spirit. The canonical Gospels don't tell us who declared Jesus the beloved son during the baptism, we simply assume it was the Father. However, the Gospel of the Hebrews (now lost, but quoted by Origen and Jerome) states that the Holy Spirit is the Mother of Jesus and it was she who declared Jesus her son during the baptism.

Jesus is sometimes identified with Gabriel (Epistle of the Apostles, the Sibylline oracles) and sometimes identified with Michael (Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation 12:7, 11:16). Jesus was known as the Angel of Great Council to the early Christians (LXX Isaiah 9:6, Novatian, Theodotus, Origen, Eusebius). Methodius called him chief among the archangels. Melito and Justin also called Jesus an Angel.

In Revelation 14:1, the saved have the name of god written upon their foreheads. According to Ezekiel 9:4, this mark was a tau, which looks like X in the old Hebrew and Samaritan scripts. This is mentioned in the Talmud (Horayoth 12a) as the shape of a Greek chi. Early Chrisitans put this sign upon their foreheads, showing they identified Yahweh and Christ.

Chapter 11

The early Christians prayed to Jesus as if he were Yahweh (1 Corinthians 16:22, Didache 10:6). Several early versions of John 1:18 read "the only begotten GOD who is in the bosom of the Father" instead of "only begotten Son" (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, parts of Irenaeus and Origen). Barker goes on to quote numerous New Testament passages which name Jesus as God. Jesus is called the Savior in the New Testament, while the Old Testament constantly refers to Yahweh as the Savior.

In 2 Esdras 13, the Son of God rises from the sea and destroys the wicked by breathing fire. There are a couple cryptic references to a deity named Righteousness (Isaiah 1:21,26) thought by some to be the Canaanite deity Zedek, but Righteousness could be another of Yahweh's titles. The name Melchizedek is also related.

2 Corinthians and the Epistle to the Hebrews both imply that Jesus was present at the Exodus. Two of the most important early manuscripts of Jude, verse 5 (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus) actually read, "Jesus saved a people from the land of Egypt." This isn't surprising after reading the numerous passages in the New Testament which clearly identify Jesus as Yahweh.

The Great Angel by Margaret Barker, Part 2

Chapter 4

According to Philo, the two cherubim of the temple represent the God of Israel, yet one is male and one is female. Both participated in creation and the mother was called either Knowledge or Wisdom. According to rabbinic tradition (Babylonian Talmud Megillah 3a, Genesis Rabbah 8:1, Clementine Homilies III:54:2) Yahweh was a hermaphrodite and created Adam as a hermaphrodite. Philo did not think Adam was a hermaphrodite, but believed that Yahweh was (God made male and female and created them after his image).

Rabba bar Rab Shila's text of 1 Kings 7:36 described the cherubim as like a man intertwined with his wife. Ezekiel 41:18 implies this by describing the cherubim as having two heads, one of a man and one of a lion, facing away from each other. Yahweh is sometimes described in feminine terms, such as giving birth to Israel (Deuteronomy 32:11,18, Isaiah 42:14, see also Isaiah 45:9-11, Isaiah 49:14-15, Isaiah 66:13).

Digging into the texts, Margaret Barker finds evidence that Yahweh's female aspect or consort, Wisdom, was suppressed by the Deuteronomists (1 Enoch 94:5, Deuteronomy 4:6, Baruch 3:12, Baruch 3:36-37, Pistis Sophia). Kabbalistic writings speak of the exile of the female aspect of Yahweh called Shekinah. Jeremiah calls this figure the Queen of Heaven (Jeremiah 44:17-18). A female god is also mentioned in Micah 5:3 and Isaiah 7:14.

In the Deuteronomic writings, the goddess Asherah is always linked with Ba'al, however in extra-Biblical Hebrew writings, Asherah is linked with Yahweh, and in Canaanite texts of the first millennium, she is never linked with Ba'al. It seems the Deuteromists connected Asherah with Ba'al in an effort to discredit both, but Asherah was originally Yahweh's consort, not Ba'al's.

In Isaiah, a female herald brings news to Zion and Jerusalem (Isaiah 40:9, 61:1-4) but later becomes identified with the city itself (Isaiah 54:7), a city which is abandoned by her husband (Isaiah 49:14) and deprived of her children (Isaiah 54:1). Perhaps this was why the city of New Jerusalem married the Lamb in the New Testament (Revelation 21:9-14). The woman in labor from Isaiah (Isaiah 66:7) becomes the woman clothed with the sun (Revelation 12:1-6) which indicates that John saw her as a goddess.

We know Asherah was worshiped in Israel, since we are repeatedly told that she was purged from the Temple (2 Kings 23:6-7, 18:4, 21:7, 13:6, 23:6, 1 Kings 15:13, 18:19, 18:40). These purgings didn't seem to take effect, since she always seemed to come back. She is described by Ezekiel in terms similar to Lady Atirat, consort of El and mother to seventy sons in the Ugaritic literature.

We also know she was Yahweh's consort from archealogical evidence. There are inscriptions mentioning "Yahweh and his Asherah" at Kuntillet 'Ajrud and Khirbet-el-Qom. There is a cultic stand at Taanach which has two Asherah scenes and two Yahweh scenes. Asherah is sometimes depicted as a tree (see Deuteronomy 16:21, 7:5, 12:3, 1 Kings 14:23, 14:15, 16:33, 2 Kings 17:10, 17:16, Proverbs 3:18, Sirach 24:13-22) while Yahweh was depicted as a sun horse. Female figurines have been found at many Israelite sites, including at the royal palace of Ramath Rachel, indicating that worship of a female deity was not limited to the common people. Horse figurines, some with sun disks around their heads, have also been found in Jerusalem, not far from the temple (see 2 Kings 23:11, Revelation 19:11-16).

In one version of 1 Enoch 10:1, the archangel who warns Noah about the Flood is named Istrael, the Greek version of the Hebrew Ishtarel which is very similar to the Babylonian goddess Ishtar who laments the Flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Not only was Yahweh's female aspect called the Spirit of God or Wisdom in the Old Testament, but many early Christians considered the Holy Spirit of the trinity to be female. The greatest church in Byzantium was named Hagia Sophia after Wisdom. Words Matthew 23:34 attributes to Jesus are attributed to Wisdom in Luke 11:49 and Paul describes Jesus as the Wisdom of God in 1 Corinthians 1:24.

Chapter 5

The Prayer of Joseph, an early Jewish work which has not survived the ravages of time, but is quoted in part by Origen, says that the archangel Israel was chief captain of the heavenly hosts before coming to earth as Jacob. According to the gnostic text On the Origin of the World, Jesus became the angel Israel ('the man who sees God').

The angel Jaoel, Joel, or Yahoel (whose name is a combination of Yahweh and El) is described in the Apocalypse of Abraham as being robed in purple with a rainbow turban. He carries a golden scepter, and has white hair and a body like sapphire. He lives in the seventh heaven. This angel also appears in the Slavonic Life of Adam and Eve 31 and the Apocalypse of Moses 43:15. In 3 Enoch, this archangel reveals that he is better known as Metatron, and he used to be the man known as Enoch (3 Enoch 4:3). Metatron is also mentioned in b. Sanhedrin 38b.

In apocalyptic writings, humans are referred to as animals and angels are referred to as men. Thus, when Noah is born a bull and becomes a man (1 Enoch 89:1) and Moses is a sheep who becomes a man (1 Enoch 89:36), what's really being described is the process of them becoming angels. The New Testament describes Jesus going through a similar transformation (Philippians 2:9-11).

Metatron is known as the Little Yahweh, which implies there were two Yahwehs. Many early Christian and gnostic texts refer to two different Lords or Yahwehs (Pistis Sophia, Book of Jeu, Gannat Bussame, Sirach 51:10, Ascension of Isaiah 9:40, 10:7, Eusebius, 1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

Some places refer to just four archangels, while others refer to seven. Adding these together may explain why Yahweh is said to have eleven names. 1 Enoch 20 names the seven archangels as Uriel (2 Esdras 2:48, 4:1), Raphael (Book of Tobit), Raguel, Michael, Saraqael, Gabriel (Daniel 8:16, 9:21), and Remiel (2 Esdras 4:36, Apocalypse of Zephaniah, 2 Baruch 55:3, 63:6). Enoch gives each angel a different role, however their roles seemed to be interchangeable.

Yahweh tries to kill Moses in Exodus 4:24, however in Jubilees 48:1-3, it is the angel Mastema who tries to kill Moses instead. 1 Enoch mentions a couple other fallen angels: Azazel and Semjaza. Fragmentary texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the Prince of Darkness was also known as Satan or Melchiresa, while the Prince of Light was also called Michael and Melchizedek.

Melchizedek appears only twice in the Old Testament (Genesis 14, Psalms 110). Both references indicate that he is a priest of El Elyon (not Yahweh). However, the 11QMelch fragment presents Melchizedek as not a priest, but an angel. He is the judge of the council of gods in Psalms 82:1 and the one heralded in Isaiah 52:7 (see also Isaiah 61:1).

In the Kabbalah, Yahweh is Adam, the primordial man.

Chapter 6

In the Old Testament, "Yahweh" and the "Name of Yahweh" are sometimes used synonymously, but sometimes refer to two different figures. The Name, or the Logos, was an important concept to Philo. In Exodus, the priests wore a golden plate on their turban which said "Holy to Yahweh", however Philo records a different tradition in which the golden plate said simply YHWH, indicating that the priest was a stand in for Yahweh.

It was originally thought that Yahweh himself sat upon the cherubim throne in the Temple of Solomon, but the Deuteronomists criticized this idea.

But will God indeed dwell on earth? Behold heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built. (1 Kings 8:27)

Would you build a house for me to dwell in? [Your son] shall build a house for my Name. (2 Samuel 7:5,13)

The Deuteronomists tell us Yahweh's Name dwells in the Temple, not Yahweh himself. According to the Gospel of Truth 38 and other gnostic texts, the Name is the Son of God. There are Greek magical papyri which give the name of the god of the Jews as Jesus. Jesus and Yahweh were one and the same. "I conjure you by the God of the Hebrews, Jesus" or "Hail God of Abraham; hail, God of Isaac, hail, God of Jacob, Jesus Chrestos, the Holy Spirit, the son of the Father." The fact that two different versions of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5) both forbid taking the Name in vain, may be a reference to this magical practice of invocation.

The Great Angel by Margaret Barker, Part 1

The Great Angel by Margaret Barker

Margaret Barker's book The Great Angel is incredibly dense, so I'm unable to provide a full summary of everything. I highly recommend everyone get a copy and read it for themselves. Her book does assume a readership with some knowledge of Biblical studies, so if you're not already familiar with the scholarship, parts may be confusing.

Chapter 1

In the Old Testament, the phrase "son of God" is sometimes used to refer to angels, and sometimes used to refer to kings or the people of Israel. However, there are different words for God in Hebrew. Sons of El Elyon, El, or Elohim are always heavenly beings, i.e. angels, whereas sons of Yahweh, Lord, or the Holy One are always humans. This indicates that Yahweh is not the Most High God, but rather one of the sons of El Elyon.

Turning to the New Testament, Jesus is called the son of the Most High, that is the son of El Elyon (Luke 1:32, Mark 5:7), but not the son of Yahweh or the son of the Lord. In fact, Jesus is called Lord himself, which is the phrase New Testament writers use to refer to Yahweh (compare Deuteronomy 6:5 with Luke 10:27).

Yahweh is the most prominent son of El Elyon in Biblical literature, but other sons of El Elyon also make appearances. The sons of El Elyon in Genesis 6:2-4 who fathered children with human women are named in 1 Enoch 6:7 and 59:2.

In the LXX and Qumran version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, El Elyon divides the world up into different nations, one for each of his sons. Yahweh gets Israel, while the other gods get the other nations. These sons of god also appear in Deuteronomy 32:43, LXX and DSS versions, and are referred to in Hebrews 1:6. These rival gods, also called messengers or angels, also appear in Isaiah 14:32. They are called princes in Daniel 10:13-14 where they fight against Yahweh and the archangel Michael.

These rival gods challenge Yahweh in Job 1:6, although you can't tell that from most English translations: "Now there was a day when the sons of El Elyon set themselves against Yahweh and Satan came also among them." Here we learn that Satan is one of the other sons of El Elyon, making him Yahweh's brother and fellow god. In the Book of Job, Yahweh is not the highest god, but rather just one amongst many and he is challenged to prove that Job is loyal only to him. The sons of El Elyon get mentioned again in Job 38:7: Yahweh asks Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? [...] when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of El shouted for joy?" The creation of the other sons of El (angels) are mentioned in Jubilees 2:1,4.

Psalms also mentions the sons of El Elyon. In Psalm 29:1, they are told to acknowledge Yahweh (often translated as Lord in English). Psalm 89:6 tells us Yahweh is feared amongst the council of gods. Psalm 58 and 82 describe the judgement placed upon the sons of El Elyon. "You are Elohim (plural form of God in Hebrew), sons of Elyon (the Most High), all of you..." (Psalms 82:6)

One like a son of God appears in the fiery furnace in Daniel 3:25. 2 Esdras 13:22-26, and 2 Esdras 2:42:-48 present one of the sons of Elyon as the deliverer of Israel. There is also the Qumran fragment 4Q Son of God: "He shall be hailed as the son of El and they shall call him the son of Elyon." In apocalyptic literature such as Daniel and Revelation, the sons of El are referred to as being like men (for example, Daniel 9:21 calls the angel Gabriel a man), whereas mortals are called animals.

Chapter 2

A great reform occurred in ancient Israel when the Book of Deuteronomy was "discovered" (2 Chronicles 34-35, 2 Kings 22-23). History was rewritten to conform to the new laws, although books such as 1 Enoch and parts of Isaiah preserve the pre-Deuteronomic religion of Israel. Interestingly, there is no mention of Moses in any Jewish writings until after the Babylonian exile. He appears to have been introduced by the writers of Deuteronomy as part of their attempt to elevate the Law above Wisdom (Deuteronomy 4:5-6).

Part of this new Law was the prohibition against worshiping gods other than Yahweh. Thus history had to be rewritten to remove reference to the other gods, although, as we have seen, traces of Israel's previous polytheism remain.

I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them. (Exodus 6:2-3)

"You are my witness," says Yahweh, "I am El, and also henceforth, I am He." (Isaiah 43:12-13)

Yahweh thundered in the heavens, and Elyon uttered his voice. (Psalms 18:13) 

The Israelite and Canaanite myths are very similar. The theophanies of Yahweh resemble the appearances of the Canaanite storm god Ba'al Haddu (Job 38, Ezekiel 1:4, Isaiah 24:19-23, 34:8-10, 42:13-15, 59:16-19). Yahweh's heaven resembles the Canaanite court of El. The son of man vision in Daniel 7 has similarities to the depictions of Ba'al and El in the Ugaritic texts. This relationship gets carried over into the New Testament in the parable of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:31-46) where the king (the Son of Man) acknowledges a superior Father.

During the period of Deuteronomic reform, multiple gods were combined into a single entity, however not all the Israelites went along with this. Worship of El and Yahweh as two separate gods fulling the roles of Father and Son continued all throughout Jewish history and eventually spun off into the new religion of Christianity.

Chapter 3

Psalm 89 depicts Yahweh as the greatest of the Holy Ones in heaven. In Daniel, these Holy Ones or Watchers bring Yahweh's decrees to earth (Daniel 4:14). Two of them discuss the fate of Jerusalem in Daniel 8:13 and they are promised the kingdom of Elyon (Daniel 7:18, 25, 27).

The Holy Ones are Yahweh's entourage when he comes as King (Deuteronomy 33:2-3, Zechariah 14:1-9, 1 Enoch 1:2,9, also quoted in Jude 14). The early Christians expected Jesus to come just like Yahweh and refer to him as a Holy One (Mark 1:24)

The house of David shall be like Elohim, like the angel of Yahweh at their head. (Zechariah 12:8)

In some sections of the Bible, the words god and angel are used interchangeably (Psalms 34:7, Psalms 35:5-6, 2 Samuel 24:16-17, 2 Kings 1:3, 2 Kings 15, Exodus 14:19), although in later sections a clear distinction is made between angels and gods. However, there are far more passages in which Yahweh and Angel of Yahweh are used interchangeably (Zechariah 3:1-7, Genesis 16, Genesis 18, Genesis 48:15-16, Judges 5:23, Judges 6:11-16, Judges 13:3,22, Genesis 22:12, 2 Kings 19:34-35, Isaiah 37:35-36). When Moses talks to the burning bush (Exodus 3:2-7), the Angel of Yahweh, Elohim, and Yahweh all speak to him at different times, indicating these terms were used as synonyms, although early Christians may have read the trinity into this story.

Yahweh had the form of a man and carried a sword filled with blood (Isaiah 34:6). He protected Israel and did battle with their enemies. He appointed their high priest and was their redeemer and judge. Ezekiel described Yahweh as being bronze from the waist up and made of fire from the waist down with a rainbow surrounding him (Ezekiel 1:27-28). Daniel describes a similar figure made of bronze and fire (Daniel 10:5-6). In Daniel 7, Yahweh (Son of Man) is depicted as the young warrior god succeeding the elderly El Elyon (Ancient of Days).

The four names of the Messiah, Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) are summarized in the LXX as simply "The Angel of Great Council." This great fourfold angel was divided up into four different angels: Gabriel (Literally Strength of God. This is Yahweh as El Gibbor or Mighty God as in Isaiah 10:21), Raphael (Healing of God. This is Yahweh as healer as in Exodus 15:26 and Psalms 30:2), Phanuel (Presence of God, later became Uriel, Light of God invoked in the high priestly blessing of Numbers 6:25), and Michael (Who is Like God? the incomparable Yahweh of Isaiah 40:18,25). Michael was the Wonderful Counsellor (since Yahweh's incomparability lay in his wisdom Job 38-39, Isaiah 40, 43), Gabriel was Mighty God, Raphael was Everlasting Father and Phanuel was Prince of Peace.

Throughout the Bible, kings are said to be the sons of Yahweh and worshipped as if they were Yahweh (1 Chronicles 29:20,23, 1 Chronicles 28:6, Zephaniah 1:5). Kings of other nations are also described as gods. The Babylonian king is associated with a god called the Day Star, one of the sons of El in the Ugaritic texts. Day Star is also called Lucifer, not to be confused with Satan who is a different god altogether (Isaiah 14:12). Just like the planet Venus (a.k.a the morning star) is the brightest object in the sky before sunrise, so too Day Star appears to be the mightiest god. However, when the sun does rise, Babylon's god, like Venus, will disappear in the face of the sun (Yahweh). Yahweh vows to destroy another god in Ezekiel 28:12-19, this one associated with the King of Tyre. Moses is said to be a King and a God in some extra canonical sources (Philo's Life of Moses 1:155-158, the Exodus of Ezekiel the Dramatist).

The word "branch" is used to refer to kings, such as the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:19), Ptolemy III Euergetes (Daniel 11:7), and the royal prince of the house of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1).

Leviticus 16 describes a ritual in which the sins of the people are placed upon a goat which is driven out into the desert "for" Azazel, although the Hebrew can also be translated "as" Azazel, meaning the goat is being punished for Azazel's rebellion in 1 Enoch 10:5 and The Book of Giants from the Dead Sea Scrolls. A second goat, perhaps representing Yahweh, is slain for purposes of atonement. Thus, the god symbolically dies for the sins of the people which becomes a major idea in Christianity later on.

The Mark of Cain by Ruth Mellinkoff

The story of Cain found in Genesis 4 is very short and highly ambiguous. It brings up more questions than it answers. Why did God accept Abel's offering, but not Cain's? Did Cain repent of his murder of Abel? Why did God protect Cain from being murdered himself? Why did Cain fear being murdered when the only other humans were his parents? How did Cain eventually die? Or did he? What was the mark of Cain?

Numerous theologians from antiquity, the Middle Ages, and modern times have attempted to fill in the blanks with their own interpretations. According to Ambrose and other commentators, the mark (or sign) of Cain was a protective symbol to keep Cain alive so that he had an opportunity to repent. However, Jerome and others assert that the reason God kept Cain alive was to torment him further and Basil considered the mark of Cain as a kind of scarlet letter proclaiming his crime rather than a protective symbol.

The Genesis Rabbah (Bereshith 22:12) gives multiple theories as to what the sign of Cain was: An event such as the Lord causing the sun to shine or suspending judgement until the Flood, a disfigurement such as giving Cain leprosy or a horn growing out of his head, and making Cain himself a sign to other murderers or penitents. One rabbi even supposes the Lord gave Cain a dog as a bodyguard to prevent others from murdering him.

In Revelation, marks on the forehead are used both for protection of the righteous (7:3, 9:4), and as a mark to identify those who are evil (14:9-10). The mark on the forehead is also a protection in Ezekial 9:4-6, and Aaron, the brother of Moses is instructed to wear a mark on his forehead (Exodus 28:36-38). Along these same lines, followers of Yahweh are instructed to wear a mark in Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18.

Psuedo-Jonathan Targum to Genesis 4:15 states the mark placed upon Cain was one of the letters of God's name YHWH placed on his face. The Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer tells us that the mark was one of the letters of the alphabet placed on Cain's arm. The Zohar also states that God put one of the letters of the alphabet on Cain.

The most popular interpretation of Cain's mark for most of Christian history, cited by some early Christian works, such as The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, and the writings of Bede, state that Cain's trembling and moaning is the sign.

Others say that the mark of Cain was a physical deformity. In the Irish Lebor Gabála Érenn, the mark of Cain was the inability to grow a beard. Whereas the Irish Saltair na Rann states that the mark was a lump on his forehead. In the Saltair na Rann, Cain later dies when a tree hits him on the lump in a freak accident. Another account of Cain's death is found in Jubilees 4:31 where he dies from his house falling down on top of him. One of the versions of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Benjamin 7 states that Cain died in the Flood.

The most popular deformity to assign to Cain throughout the centuries is the growth of a horn, which makes his descent Lamech mistake him for a wild animal and shoot him with an arrow (Midrash Tanhuma, on Genesis 11, Jasher 2:26-31). In the Armenian book called The History of Cain and Abel, the horn or horns cry out with a loud voice that Cain murdered his brother wherever he went. A Cornish play Gwreans an Bys gives Cain horns, but also makes him hairy.

Although it's more common for black skin to be the sign of Ham's curse (for seeing the nakedness of his father Noah), black skin has also been thought to be the mark of Cain. Midrash Rabbah Genesis 22:6 says Cain's face was blackened when God rejected his sacrifice. The Armenian History of Cain and Abel says God was so mad at Cain He beat his face with hail that was blackened like coal, and thus Cain's face became black. This tradition continues in Mormonism today (Moses 7:8,22, Abraham 1:22-24, Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie, Mormonism and the Negro by John Stewart, The Church and the Negro by John Lund). (As this book was written in 1981, Mellinkoff does not mention the current Mormon folk belief that Cain is in fact Bigfoot, an idea derived from the description of Cain found in The Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball.)

Mellinkoff also mentions a couple non-theological interpreations of Cain's sign. The medieval play, the Mactacio Abel, transforms the story of Cain into a satire on fifteenth-century legal practices with God's protection of Cain being compared to a King's pardon, which was much abused during the time. Demian by Hermann Hesse interprets the sign of Cain as being a certain expression on his face indicating intelligence and boldness and an unwillingness to go along with the herd.

Early Christians such as Ambrose, Augustine and Bede, associated Cain with the Jews and compared Cain's killing of Abel with the Jews killing Christ. The sign of Cain in this instance is that the Jewish race will never be killed, but forever be cursed to wander the earth. Isidore of Seville says that the sign of Cain is circumcision specifically, an idea several later Church figures adopted. In 1215, Pope Innocent III decreed that Jews wear clothing to distinguish them from Christians, making the sign of Cain literal, a practice that continued sporadically throughout the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and Nazi Germany.

The Pre-Nicene New Testament

The Pre-Nicene New Testament is Robert M. Price's own translation of the early works of Christianity including everything from the canonical New Testament as well as several works which didn't make the cut. It's easier to read than the King James Translation both because he arranges the scriptures into paragraphs rather than verses and because he writes them in modern English vernacular. For example, the King James Version has:

Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake. Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice. (John 13:37-38)

The Pre-Nicene New Testament translates this same passage as:

Peter says to him, "Lord, why can I not follow you yet? I will gladly lay down my life for you!" Jesus answers, "Oh, will you, now? Amen, amen: I say to you, cock-crow will not roll around till you have repudiated me three times!"

Citing many other Biblical scholars and variant versions of the scriptures, Price attempts to reconstruct the original versions of the texts. He highlights the parts which he takes to be later additions, makes educated guesses in order to reconstruct fragmentary portions, and in some cases, rearranges the order of the chapters. The Gospel of John, for example, is full of narrative discontinuities which disappear when he rearranges the order of the passages.

Price includes many books that you won't find in a standard New Testament. The Book of John the Baptizer is a reconstruction of the Mandaean Book of John. The Mandaeans are a Gnostic sect which still survives in modern day Iraq who believe that John the Baptist was a true prophet, but Jesus was the antichrist. There are also a couple books by disciples of John the Baptist, The Revelation of Dositheus and The Great Declaration of Simon Magus. There's also The Infancy Gospel of Thomas which recounts the miracles Jesus performed as a child and The Generations of Jesus (Toledoth Jeschu), a Jewish anti-gospel in which Judas is the hero and Jesus is the villain.

Price attempts to reconstruct the earliest known Biblical cannon, Marcion's Apostolicon. The Gospel of Marcion was later rewritten into the Gospel of Luke, and no copies of the original survive. However, using clues from early church fathers such as Tertullian, Price reconstructs the original as best he can.

The best parts of this book, however, are not the scriptures, but Price's introductory essays to each book and his footnotes. I found it interesting that the King James Version originally included the Apocrypha. He points out second century anachronisms in the gospels and epistles which challenge the main stream view held by Christian scholars that these works were written in the first century. The epistles written to the Corinthians seem to have originally been written not to the city of Corinth, but rather to the gnostic Cerinthian sect. 2 Thessalonians actually accuses 1 Thessalonians of being a forgery (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2). Ephesians (also know as Laodiceans) is not an actual epistle, but rather a cut and paste compilation of the other epistles. Luke, Acts, Titus, and 1 and 2 Timothy all appear to have been written by the same author who Price suggests might be Polycarp.

The Shepherd of Hermas, which many early church fathers considered to be canonical but which later fell out of favor, is extremely long and boring, however, it's interesting to note that it never mentions Jesus by name, so it was likely written before the Gospels. The Epistle of Barnabas, also considered canonical by early church fathers, is interesting to me since it seems to bridge the gap between the earlier Pauline Epistles in which Jesus is a spiritual personage, and the later Gospels in which Jesus is situated into an historical setting. Barnabas attempts to find out who the mysterious Jesus was by quoting from Old Testament scriptures and claiming these refer to Jesus in code. The Gospels take this idea one step further by giving Jesus a narrative story built almost entirely out of Old Testament passages.

According to Revelation, Jesus was crucified not in Jerusalem, but rather in Rome (Revelation 11:8). Also, Revelation shares more in common with Jewish apocalyptic literature than Christian writings, so it may not even be a Christian work at all. Interestingly, The Revelation of John seems to have been written during the reign of Domitian (81-96AD) based on the fact that its "predictions" are only accurate up to this point. Since most of the other books in the New Testament contain second century anachronisms, The Book of Revelation, which is listed last, may actually have been written first. (see Matthew 20:16)

The Sacred Executioner Part 2

This is the second part of my review of The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt by Hyam Maccoby


Moses

Next, Maccoby tackles another confusing Biblical passage in which Moses' wife circumcises his son.

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision. (Exodus 4:24-26)

There have been numerous different explanations for what's going on here. A big part of the confusion has to do with figuring out which pronoun refers to whom. Maccoby translates the Hebrew as follows:

And it came to pass on the way at the lodging place, that the Lord afflicted him (with madness), and he (Moses) sought to kill him (the child). And Zipporah took a flint, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his (Moses') feet; and she said: 'Surely a bridegroom of blood art thou to me.' So He (God) withdrew from him (Moses, i.e. the fit of madness left him). Then she said, 'Bridegroom of blood for the circumcision.' (Exodus 4:24-26)

This translation indicates that Moses was about to perform a child sacrifice, but God decided that sacrificing the foreskin was enough. Thus circumcision, like animal sacrifice, was used in place of human sacrifice as religion evolved. A further clue that this passage is about human sacrifice is found in the passage immediately preceding:

Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me.” But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.’” (Exodus 4:22-23)

Maccoby cites another interpretation of this passage from the scholar Julius Wellhausen. He points out the Hebrew word for "bridegroom" is derived from a Semitic root which means "to circumcise". The Hebrew word for "father-in-law" also derives from the same root. Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, was also known as hoten Mosheh (the circumciser of Moses). This indicates to Wellhausen that this passage marks a transition from the practice of circumcising young males just before marriage to circumcising males at birth.

An example of puberty circumcision still in the Bible is found in Genesis 17:24 where Ishmael is said to be thirteen at the time of his circumcision. Another possible instance of pre-marital circumcision is found in Genesis 34 in which the inhabitants of Shechem agree to be circumcised in preperation for an intermarriage with the family of Jacob. Also Joshua circumcises the young men of Israel to prepare for the invastion of Canaan (Joshua 5).

Judas

The sacrifice of Jesus parallels the sacrifice of Isaac and is described in the same language. However, in the case of Jesus, God isn't asking someone else to sacrifice their only son, He is making Himself sacrifice His only son to appease His own anger. As is common with human sacrifice, the victim becomes deified as a way of justifying the slaughter. So too with Jesus.

The Jewish people as a whole are the Sacred Executioner in the story of Jesus. It is they who cry out "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). They are the ones who are blamed and held responsible for the death of Jesus. Sharing in their blame and in the role of Sacred Executioner are Judas Iscariot (in a way a personification of the Jewish race), the Wandering Jew, and Pilate.

Judas is like a brother to Jesus. This is because the Sacred Executioner cannot be an outsider. Just as with Cain and Abel, a close relationship is required between executioner and victim. Judas may have even been the brother of Jesus if all the characters named Judas in the Gospels are the same person. In the Acts of Thomas, Judas Thomas is considered the twin of Jesus. In fact, the Hebrew word "Thomas" simply means "twin".

Further evidence that Judas was a Sacred Executioner is the fact that his motive for betraying Jesus is flimsy and contradictory. However, since he dies instead of being cursed with immortality, he doesn't fit the role of Sacred Executioner exactly. This part of the role is taken up by the Wandering Jew and the Jewish people as a whole.

The Jews are cursed to eternally wander the earth. As in previous human sacrifices, the death of Jesus, necessary as it was, is both a crime for which the Jews must be punished and a saving event by which all Christians can profit.

Pilate symbolizes the role of the community. He orders the execution, yet washes his hands of it. Just like earlier communities which demanded, but were horrified by human sacrifice.

As an aside, I found it interesting that the reforms Jesus set out to accomplish in spite of the Pharisees in the Gospels, were the same reforms already instituted by the Pharisee movement in history. I was also interested to learn that during the Middle Ages, Christianity turned its focus from the adult Jesus to the infant Jesus held in the arms of the Virgin Mary. Maccoby refers to this change in focus as a regression.

Miscellaneous

Maccoby sees the goat for Azazel (Leviticus 16:9-10) as being a later version of the Sacred Executioner when animal sacrifice has replaced human sacrifice. He also suspects the death of Achan (Joshua 7) was originally a human sacrifice. Of course, Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter (Judges 11:30-40) is an explicit human sacrifice taking place in the Bible.

In the ancient world, sacrifice was required each spring to renew the earth. God seems to be calling for an end to human sacrifice when he says "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." (Genesis 8:22) God is saying the seasons will continue on their own, they no longer require human sacrifice to be initiated.

The last few chapters of the book get away from the Bible and the Sacred Executioner to focus on the poor treatment of Jews by Christians during the Middle Ages and the Holocaust. There's some interesting information here, but it's off topic.

I think Maccoby makes several unjustified leaps in this book. He tends to read too much into the Bible and is sometimes found harmonizing contradictions. I wish he would have cited his sources better (sometimes he doesn't even give the Biblical verse he is discussing). However, he does provide some thought provoking interpretations of the Biblical text. While his interpretation of the text is certainly possible, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the most probable.

The Sacred Executioner Part 1

This post is part one of my review of The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt by Hyam Maccoby

According to Hyam Maccoby, the Sacred Executioner is a figure appearing in various ancient religions who performs a necessary function to society in the form of human sacrifice, but is then cursed and banished from society for doing such a despicable deed. In this book, Maccoby attempts to prove that there are traces of the Sacred Executioner in the Bible.

Cain

According to the Bible, Cain kills his brother Abel because God accepted Abel's animal sacrifice, but not Cain's vegetable sacrifice. If the story of Cain and Abel is simply one of murder, why does God then place a mark upon Cain and declare that if someone kills Cain, Cain will be avenged sevenfold? Here, Maccoby sees the traces of an earlier version of the story in which Cain is a Sacred Executioner. He performed a needed human sacrifice, so he cannot be punished for his actions. However, the act is so horrible that he cannot remain a part of society.

Maccoby thinks that Abel (whose name in Hebrew means "vapour" or nothingness) wasn't the name of the person Cain originally killed. Rather, Cain killed his son Enoch. The evidence for this is the fact that human sacrifices were commonly performed in the ancient world in order to dedicate a new city and Cain named the city he built after his son Enoch. Enoch died young, at the sun-god age of 365 during a time when most people lived to be about 900. Also, the Bible doesn't say that Enoch died, but rather that he "walked with God, and he was not, for God took him" (Genesis 5:24) which implies human sacrifice to Maccoby.

Further, Maccoby supposes that Cain was originally the first man, not Adam (whose name simply means "man"). Like Adam, Cain was punished by having to toil agriculturally (Genesis 4:12) and he was also banished to the east of Eden to the land of Nod (literally "land of exile"). This implies that Cain was originally from Eden, but got kicked out. It is said that Adam "knew his wife" when he fathered Cain. Likewise, Cain "knew his wife" when he fathered Enoch. Since the phrase "knew his wife" isn't used again until the time of Noah, this implies that knowing one's wife isn't simply the act of conception, but rather the initiation of a new race.

The name Cain means "smith" in Hebrew, and indeed his descendants (particularly Tubal-Cain) are said to be blacksmiths and metalworkers. There is a tribe of smiths in the Bible called the Kenites whose name is derived from Cain and in fact their name is sometimes translated as Cain (Numbers 24:22). The father-in-law of Moses was a Kenite (Judges 4:11) and in another verse is even named Cain. Saul spares the Kenites because they showed kindness to Israel in the past (1 Samuel 15:6). The Israelites seem to have been on good terms with the Kenites since there is only one hostile reference to them in the Bible (Number 24:21-22).

Maccoby thinks that the original Kenite creation story in which Cain is the first man was replaced by the Israelite version in which Adam was the first man. Further evidence of this is the genealogy given for Adam's son Seth. The descendants of Seth listed in the Bible are based on the descendants of Cain. Their names are only spelled slightly differently: Cain, Kenan; Irad, Jared; Mehujael, Mahalalel; Mathushael, Methuselah. Also, both Cain and Seth have descendents named Enoch and Lamech.

Lamech

Very few verses are spent on Lamech in the Bible (only Genesis 4:17-24), but Maccoby suspects he was an important figure in the Kenite myth. Like his ancestor Cain, Lamech is also a murderer and in fact boasts that "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold." Lamech lives to be 777 years old, in reference to this statement. Lamech's sons are said to be the fathers of tent-dwellers, cattle raisers, musicians, and metal workers. How can this be since according to Biblical chronology they all died in the Flood? Maccoby's answer is that in the original Kenite myth, Lamech and his three sons were the ones to survive the Flood, not Noah and his three sons. Noah's wife is the first wife mentioned since Eve in the Sethian line, likewise Lamech's wives are the first mentioned since Cain's in the Cainite line.

Evidence that the Kenite/Cainite line continued after the flood is found in the geneology of Genesis 10:21-24 and 11:11-13. In the Greek Septuagint, the name Cainan, a variation on Cain, appears seven times (although it appears to have been edited out of the Masoretic text.) Cainan appears to have been used as a title since Noah's son Shem has both a son and grandson named Cainan.

Maccoby supposes that Noah's animal sacrifice giving thanks to God after the Flood had a parallel human sacrifice in the hypothetical Kenite myth. This is why Lamech claims he will be avenged like Cain; he was also a Sacred Executioner. Further, Maccoby points out the Hebrew can be translated in such a way to indicate that Lamech killed not just any man, but his own child, a theory which finds support in Midrash Tanhuma which gives the following story: Lamech was blind and would often go hunting with his son Tubal-Cain who would point him in the right direction. One day, they accidentally kill a man with a horn coming out of his head. This man is Lamech's ancestor Cain whose "mark" was the horn. Lamech claps his hands together in grief, but unfortunately, his son is standing between his hands and dies from the blow. Lamech's wives refuse to have intercourse with him for fear that any offspring they have will be under the curse. Lamech explains that even though Cain was cursed, he was allowed to have seven generations of descendants before he died, therefore Lamech would be allowed seventy seven generations. 

Maccoby supposes that in the original version of this myth, Lamech made a human sacrifice of his son, Tubal-Cain. Perhaps Cain was a god in the Kenite religion and when a child was sacrificed to him, the child became deified and associated with the god. This might be why Tubal was given the odd double name of Tubal-Cain.

Ham

Another part of the Bible that contains textual difficulty is the scene in which Noah gets drunk and passes out naked in his tent. His son Ham then sees him naked. When Noah wakes up, he somehow knows that his son saw his nakedness and responds by cursing his grandson Canaan (whose name in Hebrew actually has nothing to do with Cain even though the names are similar in English). How did Noah know what happened? Why was his son seeing him naked such a big deal? Why did he curse his grandson instead of his son?

According to the Midrash (See Genesis Rabbah 36:7; Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 70a; Yalqut Shimoni Noah 61) , Ham didn't just see his father naked, but he castrated him. He did this so Noah couldn't have anymore sons. The more sons Noah had, the less inheritance Ham would get, and in the case of Noah, his inheritance was the entire world. Maccoby then links this story to Greek and Egyptian myths involving castration and further supposes that in the original version of this myth, Canaan was the hero like when Cronus castrated Uranus. He then became the villian in the Kenite version, and finally Ham was made to share his blame in the Israelite form of the myth.

Genesis 9:24 states that "Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done to him." Ham is not Noah's youngest son, but Canaan was the youngest son of Ham. This is further evidence of tampering done with the text and points to Cronus, the youngest son of Uranus who castrated his father at his mother's urging. (The youngest son is often the champion and favorite of the mother in matriarchal myths.)

Abraham

There is no devil in the Hebrew Bible. The serpent in the Garden of Eden was not thought to be Satan in disguise before the Christian era. Satan does appear in the Book of Job, but he is not the devil, but rather one of God's angels whose job it was to reveal mankind's faults before God. This is how Satan is presented in the Talmud as well.

In the Bible, God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, but substitutes an animal at the last minute. In the Book of Jubilees, the dark angel Mastema is the one who suggests God test Abraham in this way, providing the same role as Satan in the Book of Job. In later Midrash, Satan is presented as trying to prevent the sacrifice, jogging Abraham's hand to make him drop the knife (Tanhuma, Vayera 23). This is in stark contrast to the sacrifice of Jesus in which Satan helps God make the sacrifice happen. Even though God is demanding the sacrifice of Jesus just like earlier gods demanded human sacrifice in general, God is absolved of the blame. This is another aspect of the Sacred Executioner, that not only the tribe, but also their god are absolved of blame for performing a human sacrifice.

Perhaps in an earlier version of the story, Abraham actually did sacrifice Isaac. A trace of this is found in Genesis 22:19 in which only Abraham, not Isaac departs Mount Moriah after the sacrifice. One Midrash (Shibbolei ha-Leket 9a-9b) even states that Isaac was killed and burnt to ashes but brought back to life.

The Father of Joshua/Jesus by Saul Levin Part 3

This is the third part of my book review of Saul Levin's The Father of Joshua/Jesus in which I summarize the concluding chapter.

Chapter VI

Although the names of Jesus and Joshua are different in English translations, they  are both the same name in Greek and Hebrew. In fact, Jesus seems to have been named after Joshua. While the Gospels of Matthew and Luke have completely different nativity stories from one another, one thing they both agree on is that Jesus was named by an angel. In Luke, the angel Gabriel appears to Mary and says "You shall bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus" (Luke 1:31). In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph, so the wording only differs by a pronoun: "She shall bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus." (Matthew 1:21) Luke goes on to call Jesus "son of the Highest" (Luke 1:32), perhaps with Joshua son of the Lord in mind.

In the apocryphal Protevangelium of James, the parents of Mary were sterile. So Mary's father Joakim  goes to the desert to fast for forty days, while Mary's mother Anne prays to get pregnant in a fertility rite setting - sitting under a tree, wearing a headband, and looking at a nest of sparrows. Angels appear to both of them promising a miraculous birth. Mary's mother Anne (based on Anne, the mother of the prophet Samuel in the Old Testament, also compare 1 Samuel 2:1 with Luke 1:46) vowed to give her child to serve the Lord. Accordingly, when Mary was three years old, she was given to the temple where she was fed by an angel. Perhaps her being given to the temple is an echo of the "hallowed ones" or temple prostitutes of the Hebrew Bible. When she turned twelve, the priests were worried she would pollute the temple (by menstruating) so they gave her to the elderly widow Joseph. While spinning thread to make a curtain for the temple, Mary is visited by an angel and becomes pregnant with Jesus.

In a footnote, Levin points out that the Gospels (Mark 11:8-11, Matthew 21:8-10, John 12:12-13)  confuse the autumn festival of Tabernacles where palms were waved and people cry "please save" with the spring festival of Passover. He explains their ignorance of Jewish customs by supposing the authors of the Gospels wrote after the Temple was destroyed (70 CE) and they did not attend synagogues either. I think a better explanation for why the Gospels are ignorant of Jewish customs is that they were not written by Jews, but hey, that's just me.

While Jesus recreates most of the miracles performed by Elisha and Elijah in the book of Kings, one miracle is conspicuously absent: making a sterile woman fertile (although Luke has John the Baptist born to aged parents similar to Abraham and Sarah, this happens before the birth of Jesus). Levin supposes that Jesus's miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding (John 2:1-11) could be thought of as a fertility miracle since having plenty of wine at a wedding makes the occasion more joyous which in turn makes it more likely that the marriage will produce children, but I think this is stretching it a bit.

In another footnote, Levin points out that the name of Jesus's mother is never given in the Gospel of John, and in fact her name being Mary as it is in the other Gospels is unlikely since her sister is named Mary. While it wouldn't be unusual in Roman families to have two sisters both named Mary, this wasn't done amongst Jews. Does this indicate that John had a different name in mind for the mother of Jesus, perhaps edited out later to conform with the other Gospels, or is it an indication that the Gospel writer was Roman?

Jesus is called the "son of David" when he heals the blind or performs exorcisms (Matthew 9:27, 15:22,  20:30-31, Mark 10:47-48, Luke 18:38-39), which implies that David was known for performing such miracles himself. David does cure Saul of an evil spirit (1 Samuel 16:14) and the Talmud tells us he was a gynecologist (Tractate Berakoth 4a). However, David did not heal the crippled Mephibosheth, although he did provide for him (2 Samuel 9:1-9). Perhaps with this in mind, Jesus is not called the "son of David" when he heals the lame (Luke 5:17-26, John 5:1-15). The only other time Jesus is called the "son of David" is during his triumphal entry into Jerusalem during Passover (Matthew 21:9-16). 

Although Jesus is called "the Anointed One" (i.e. Christ), there is no depiction of him actually being anointed. The closest the Gospels come is when a woman pours perfume on him (Matthew 26:7, Mark 14:3, John 12:3, Luke 7:36-50) although Jesus himself says this is for his burial (Matthew 26:12, Mark 14:8), not for anointing. Acts 10:38 is the most explicit reference to an act of anointing, although this refers to being anointed by spirit. Levin muses that the anointing had to be kept secret since when the disciples of Jesus say he is the anointed one, he instructs them to tell no one (Matthew 16:16-20, Mark 8:29-30, Luke 9:20-21). Calling himself the anointed one was tantamount to calling himself King of the Jews, which is what ended up getting him into trouble. Jesus not being officially anointed like King David makes him more like Joshua who wasn't anointed either. This is because Joshua was from an earlier time when leadership was bestowed by the laying on of hands rather than anointing (Numbers 27:18-23).

Just as Joshua's spies in Jericho stay at the house of Rahab the prostitute (Joshua 2:1), Jesus kept the company of prostitutes. Joshua's miracle of destroying the walls of Jericho (Joshua 6:1-20) finds a possible correspondence in Jesus's claim that he will destroy the temple and in three days build another ( Mark 14:57-59, Matthew 26:60-61, John 2:19). Although Levin doesn't mention it, Joshua's miracle of making the sun stand still (Joshua 10:12-13) may correspond to the darkening of the sun at the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44-45). Levin claims Jesus was meant to be a military leader like Joshua and plays up the militant aspect of Jesus, pointing out that the followers of Jesus were armed (Luke 22:49), one of Jesus's followers cut off a servant's ear (Mark 14:47, Matthew 26:51, Luke 22:50, John 18:10), Jesus tells his disciples to sell all they have to buy swords (Luke 22:35-36), and Jesus says he came not to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34-36).  I must admit that all these similarities seem more like parallelomania than actual evidence of a correspondence to me.

In direct contradiction to his own introduction, Levin uncritically accepts the Gospel accounts as history rather than literature and cherry picks out passages that match his view of Jesus as a guerilla leader. He ends his book by telling us that Jesus being called the son of God was originally due to his being a great man, not due to being thought of as God's literal offspring.