Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[Ishtar]

Unfortunately, we have nothing like all the Dead Sea Scrolls available to us digitally, although apparently a project has just begun to provide that resource. So, until that is completed, we will have to continue to rely on the books of those who have seen them, or more likely seen just photographs of them – and an added difficulty is that many of them are just tiny scraps.

So with all that as a caveat, (and maybe I’m also reinventing the wheel) my own view is that, from what we’re seeing so far, many if not most of the Dead Sea Scrolls were the scriptures of the followers of Melchizedek, known then as the sons of Zadok or Zadokites, and with the jury still out on whether they were also the Sadducees.

Melchizedek, according to the OT, was the king of Jerusalem who blessed Abraham when he was returning from rescuing Lot during the battle of the kings. Melchizedek gave Abraham bread and wine to feed all his people. After that, Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek.

I am also coming to view that the story of Mechizedek is actually an allegory for the serpent cult, which is the oldest cult we know of, was worldwide at that time and for thousands of years before that, and was what the Mystery rites were centred around. But I’ll leave all that for another day and for now, take it all at face value.

Anyway, today I found another Dead Sea Scrap which is about Melchizedek, no: 11Q13:

From: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls/11Q13

By the power of Melchizedek, dominion on earth shall pass from Satan (here called Belial) to the righteous Sons of Light.

This latter group constitutes those who are predestined to belong to the party of Melchizedek, "the congregation of the sons of righteousness."
The messenger, also designated "Anointed of the Spirit" (Hebrew messiah), is conceived of as coming with a message from God.

This figure dies, an event that may correspond somehow with the text's references to "jubilee periods." In many of the scrolls, jubilee periods are not only times of liberation as described in the Bible, but also ways of keeping track of time.

The present text apparently envisions a scheme in which the coming of the Last Days is calculated by means of these jubilee periods ...

[The interpretation] is that it applies [th the L]ast Days and concerning the captives, just as [Isaiah said: "To proclaim the jubilee to the captives"(Isa61:1) . . . .] and whose teachers have been hidden and kept secr[et], even from the inheritance of Melchizedek, f[or ...] and they are the inheritance of Melchi]zedek who will return them to what is rightfully theirs.

He will proclaim to them the jubilee, thereby releasing th[em from the debt of a]ll their sins.

The above document, 11Q13, also refers to the Sons of Light. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls is also the War Scroll (1QM), which is about the battle between the Sons of Light (thought by some to be the white- robed Zadokites) and the Sons of Darkness (thought by some to be the black-robed Pharisees). Another copy of this War Scroll was found at the Zealots’ fort at Masada.

But anyway, to get to the point, why I believe all this is important is because we are trying to trace the sources of the Christianity. And Jesus as a son of Melchizedek, or a descendant in his line (spiritually if not physically) is made much of by the writer of Hebrews, whoever he was. And in Matthew, Zadok is put into Jesus’s genealogy.

"So also Christ glorified not Himself to be made an High Priest; but He that said unto Him, Thou art My Son, today have I begotten Thee. As He saith also in another place, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec....And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him; Called of God an High Priest after the order of Melchizedec." Hebrews 5:5-20

"To lay hold upon the hope set before us. Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an High Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec." Hebrews 6:18-20

"For this Melchizedec, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: But he [Melchizedek] whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

And without all contradiction the less [Abraham] is blessed of the better Melchizedek. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them [Melchizedek], of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes to Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedec met him.

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people received the law, what further need was there that another priest [Jesus] should rise after the order of Melchizedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? “

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken [Jesus] pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchizedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

For He testifieth, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedec...And inasmuch as not without an oath, He [Jesus] was made priest: For those priests were made without an oath [in previous times, they became priests by hereditary right; they didn’t have to be sworn by oath into the priesthood - Ish]; but with an oath by Him that said unto Him, The Lord sware and will not repent. Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec: By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament." Hebrews 7:1-22

So it looks as if at least two prominent NT writers were very keen to associate Jesus with Melchizedek and thus the Zadokites or Sons of Zadok – aka the writers of many of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Or even possibly Jesus could have been a Zadokite creation ... they could have ‘made flesh’ what they’d already written about.

[seeker]

It reads to me as pure Zoroastrian eschatology, not Sadducees versus Pharisees but good versus evil or in more clear terms, spiritual versus material, truth versus the lie.

This is why I've begun to see this as possibly a set rough drafts for the OT itself. Its the right era, this is around the time the bible was written. There is a clear attempt to set up a party, the Sadducees, as 'Gods warriors' in a coming conflict (independence from the Greeks) and a call to arms behind a Messiah (probably old Mattathias, the patriarch of the Maccabees)

[Ishtar]

I think to a Bible minimalist as yourself, this would be very clear cut.

But I disagree with the minimalists, on that count. I don't think these stories were made up from scratch. I think they built on existing folk tales and legends to turn them into whatever political propaganda they wanted to turn them into. To build on people's ideas of what they already know to be true (aka mythological archetypes) makes them more easier to manipulate, as advertising agencies know, rather than giving them a brand new story.

So I'm usually more interested in the whys and wherefores of the stories before the propagandists got their hands on them. And for that reason, much about the Melchizedek story smacks of the ancient serpent cult which was worldwide and almost certainly practised by the Magis, along with all the other mystic types throughout Mesopotamia.

For instance, that Melchizedek 'brought forth' (always a tip off something mystical is about to happen) wine and bread for Abraham - this was the first eucharist, as also practised by the serpent-focused Mystery rites. Then a bit later on we have Moses holding up the serpent on the cross, saying that all who look on this serpent will be saved. And then in John 3, you have "as Moses lifted up the serpent on the cross, so must the Son of Man be lifted up..."

Even Abraham could be translated as Serpent God. Ab was the name of serpent to the Ophites and 'aham' is one of oldest names for god. And usually where there is a Z, as in Melchizedek, it reflects 'serpent energy'.

I agree that there is a battle between darkness and light in Zoroastrianism. But there also is in the Vedas, and also the Egyptians had Set (personifying darkness) trying to destroy Osiris (light). I think the battle between light and darkness is at the heart of many religions .. most probably because it is thought to be an allegory about the sun's path each day ...although there may be more to it.

So my point is, the stories are likely much older than the Hasmonean period - although there is nothing to say, imo, that the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the Yahwehists didn't adapt them for their own political ends.

[seeker]

Ish - You are misreading me. I agree that the biblical author used older stories. He/they used what people already believed for political purposes.

What I'm saying though is that the connections you are finding between the various cults in the region are because they were seeded by the Persians during their period of dominance of the region. We don't know for sure that those similarities would have been their if the Persians had not seeded their religion throughout the region.

I do agree with you that many of these notions are Vedic but again the Persian religion was Vedic in origin and was seeded throughout the region. the commonality you are seeing isn't the result of independent people coming up with the same ideas separately. It only seems that way because the same religious ideas were sown through the region by the Achemeanids.

[Ishtar]

But because the Serpent Cult is much older than any religion, I would need to be persuaded of your view.

Zoroastrianism, for instance, has at the heart of its creation story the two serpents fighting over the mundane egg. This same idea is also found in Egyptian mythology, and also we have the cadaceus (the two snakes intertwined around the staff) in Greek mythology.

There are many more examples in many other cultures, (Vishnu sleeping on a coiled serpent, the Druids were called 'adders') but the Egyptians and the Greeks are the ones more likely to have had an influence on the Hebrews, along with, of course, the Persians.

I don't think I've seen it proved anywhere that the Hebrews were entirely without any mythology of their own before all these other influences came along and so, in my view, they could all be deriving their influences on a cult that's far older than any of them, the Serpent Cult. But I am open to your arguments that it is purely Zoroastrian.

[Minimalist]

It only seems that way because the same religious ideas were sown through the region by the Achemeanids.

And, when the Greeks tried to do the same thing a couple of centuries later they provoked a rebellion by the followers of the "old" religion.....which was merely not as "old" as they thought it was.

[seeker]

It only seems that way because the same religious ideas were sown through the region by the Achemeanids.

And, when the Greeks tried to do the same thing a couple of centuries later they provoked a rebellion by the followers of the "old" religion.....which was merely not as "old" as they thought it was.

I think the difference was that the Persians brought the religion into a country that was largely vacant after the Babylonian period while the Judah during the Greek period was densely populated.

[seeker]

But because the Serpent Cult is much older than any religion, I would need to be persuaded of your view.

Zoroastrianism, for instance, has at the heart of its creation story the two serpents fighting over the mundane egg. This same idea is also found in Egyptian mythology, and also we have the cadaceus (the two snakes intertwined around the staff) in Greek mythology.

There are many more examples in many other cultures, (Vishnu sleeping on a coiled serpent, the Druids were called 'adders') but the Egyptians and the Greeks are the ones more likely to have had an influence on the Hebrews, along with, of course, the Persians.

I don't think I've seen it proved anywhere that the Hebrews were entirely without any mythology of their own before all these other influences came along and so, in my view, they could all be deriving their influences on a cult that's far older than any of them, the Serpent Cult. But I am open to your arguments that it is purely Zoroastrian.

The Hebrews had their own mythology but they were wiped out by the Babylonians. The Persians re-settled the area and called it 'the return'. In fact the population jumps during that period. These same Persians also controlled Egypt and Greece. Add to that the fact that from Darius I on the Persians were aggressive in promoting their religion and building temples its easy to see how they seeded the region.

They also seeded the region with magi

[Minimalist]

It only seems that way because the same religious ideas were sown through the region by the Achemeanids.

And, when the Greeks tried to do the same thing a couple of centuries later they provoked a rebellion by the followers of the "old" religion.....which was merely not as "old" as they thought it was.

I think the difference was that the Persians brought the religion into a country that was largely vacant after the Babylonian period while the Judah during the Greek period was densely populated.

Certainly a possibility. Yet, the Greeks successfully imported Hellenistic thought into much of the rest of the region. For one reason or another, and even though there were apparently many "Hellenized" Jews, they provoked a reaction in Judaea.

You know me, I lean to political reasons and the inherent weakness of the Seleucid empire looks like an open invitation to revolution with "religion" just a convenient rallying-cry.

[seeker]

And, when the Greeks tried to do the same thing a couple of centuries later they provoked a rebellion by the followers of the "old" religion.....which was merely not as "old" as they thought it was.

I think the difference was that the Persians brought the religion into a country that was largely vacant after the Babylonian period while the Judah during the Greek period was densely populated.

Certainly a possibility. Yet, the Greeks successfully imported Hellenistic thought into much of the rest of the region. For one reason or another, and even though there were apparently many "Hellenized" Jews, they provoked a reaction in Judaea.

You know me, I lean to political reasons and the inherent weakness of the Seleucid empire looks like an open invitation to revolution with "religion" just a convenient rallying-cry.

I think you probably have it right to some degree. Personally I think that the Ptolomies were stirring a lot of this up as well. by that time the Ptolomies were even weaker and it was their only way to really hit back at the Selucids

[Ishtar]

The Hebrews had their own mythology but they were wiped out by the Babylonians. The Persians re-settled the area and called it 'the return'. In fact the population jumps during that period. These same Persians also controlled Egypt and Greece. Add to that the fact that from Darius I on the Persians were aggressive in promoting their religion and building temples its easy to see how they seeded the region.

They also seeded the region with magi

I think we're seeing this from different perspectives.

Here's mine:

The Hebrews were originally a brand of Canaanites, at least Proto Canaanites. And the Cananites are considered to have trickled into the Palestine area from Sumer/Akkad/Babylonia over a very long period of time. So they would have had Babylonian myths in their race memory. Thus, when they were 'exiled' to Babylon, there were in fact, in a way, returning home to their original roots and the home of their original myths. Therefore, the exile, far from wiping out their original mythologies, would have had the effect of reinforcing them.

The apocryphal first century BCE tale of Bel and the Dragon has the Hebrew hero Daniel at its centre. But a story about a Daniel who has prophetic dreams for a foreign king is also an older Canaanite story. The name itself means ‘judged by El’. El was the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon.

Some of those who are knee deep in this subject think that El and Bel are developments over time of the name of Ob-El, which means Serpent God. The Greeks knew him as Belair, and Hesychius, the Alexandrian grammarian, said that Beliar meant Great Serpent or Great Dragon.

But in Bel and the Dragon or Serpent, Daniel is transposed to the court of Cyrus, thus giving a Canaanite hero (in fact, a Canaanite shaman, as he is famous for his dream divination) a new Persian set of clothes.

This is one example of what I mean by taking the Hebrews’ existing stories and heroes and transposing them into your own locations to suit your own agenda.

Here’s another example. In Babylon in the first century BCE, Diodorus tell us that, in the temple of Bel, was "an image of the goddess Rhea, sitting on a golden throne; at her knees stood two lions, and near her very large serpents of silver, thirty talents each in weight." There was also an image of Juno, holding in her right hand the head of a serpent. (They probably weren’t “Rhea” or “Juno” – that would be how a Greek historian would recognise these Babylonian goddesses.)

Thus, most religions, as far as I can see, are just cleaned up versions of the serpent cult, which seems to have been widely spread throughout the world long before the Persians or the Magis started their seeding. The Greek Mystery rites, thought to be centred around the serpent, were begun in 1700 BC. The Druids – we don’t know how far they go back – were also followers of the Serpent/Dragon. And the story of Adam and Eve, which is thought to be the oldest story in the Bible, is also derived from the Serpent Cult, although it has been much misunderstood since.

[Minimalist]

Personally I think that the Ptolomies were stirring a lot of this up as well.

I'm sure they weren't innocent. Supporting different factions to seek a political advantage still goes on today. No reason to think it was any different back then and we have the repeated dynastic squabbles of the later Hasmoneans to show how various powers, from Parthia to Nabatea, were backing rival claimants for the throne.

[seeker]

Personally I think that the Ptolomies were stirring a lot of this up as well.

I'm sure they weren't innocent. Supporting different factions to seek a political advantage still goes on today. No reason to think it was any different back then and we have the repeated dynastic squabbles of the later Hasmoneans to show how various powers, from Parthia to Nabatea, were backing rival claimants for the throne.

The funny part, when you think about it, is that the various kingdoms (Israel, Judah, Judea and the modern State of Israel) were only independent for a combined 150 years at the most and that's counting 60 years for the modern state. so much for the whole covenant business.

[seeker]

The Hebrews had their own mythology but they were wiped out by the Babylonians. The Persians re-settled the area and called it 'the return'. In fact the population jumps during that period. These same Persians also controlled Egypt and Greece. Add to that the fact that from Darius I on the Persians were aggressive in promoting their religion and building temples its easy to see how they seeded the region.

They also seeded the region with magi

I think we're seeing this from different perspectives.

Here's mine:

The Hebrews were originally a brand of Canaanites, at least Proto Canaanites. And the Cananites are considered to have trickled into the Palestine area from Sumer/Akkad/Babylonia over a very long period of time. So they would have had Babylonian myths in their race memory. Thus, when they were 'exiled' to Babylon, there were in fact, in a way, returning home to their original roots and the home of their original myths. Therefore, the exile, far from wiping out their original mythologies, would have had the effect of reinforcing them.

The apocryphal first century BCE tale of Bel and the Dragon has the Hebrew hero Daniel at its centre. But a story about a Daniel who has prophetic dreams for a foreign king is also an older Canaanite story. The name itself means ‘judged by El’. El was the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon.

Some of those who are knee deep in this subject think that El and Bel are developments over time of the name of Ob-El, which means Serpent God. The Greeks knew him as Belair, and Hesychius, the Alexandrian grammarian, said that Beliar meant Great Serpent or Great Dragon.

But in Bel and the Dragon or Serpent, Daniel is transposed to the court of Cyrus, thus giving a Canaanite hero (in fact, a Canaanite shaman, as he is famous for his dream divination) a new Persian set of clothes.

This is one example of what I mean by taking the Hebrews’ existing stories and heroes and transposing them into your own locations to suit your own agenda.

Here’s another example. In Babylon in the first century BCE, Diodorus tell us that, in the temple of Bel, was "an image of the goddess Rhea, sitting on a golden throne; at her knees stood two lions, and near her very large serpents of silver, thirty talents each in weight." There was also an image of Juno, holding in her right hand the head of a serpent. (They probably weren’t “Rhea” or “Juno” – that would be how a Greek historian would recognise these Babylonian goddesses.)

Thus, most religions, as far as I can see, are just cleaned up versions of the serpent cult, which seems to have been widely spread throughout the world long before the Persians or the Magis started their seeding. The Greek Mystery rites, thought to be centred around the serpent, were begun in 1700 BC. The Druids – we don’t know how far they go back – were also followers of the Serpent/Dragon. And the story of Adam and Eve, which is thought to be the oldest story in the Bible, is also derived from the Serpent Cult, although it has been much misunderstood since.

Even the Serpent Cult is the product of seeding though, possibly by the Egyptians or its origins could be Vedic. there is a lot of reason to believe that the early Sumerian beliefs were influenced by earlier Vedic beliefs.

[Ishtar]

Even the Serpent Cult is the product of seeding though, possibly by the Egyptians or its origins could be Vedic. there is a lot of reason to believe that the early Sumerian beliefs were influenced by earlier Vedic beliefs.

Absolutely agree. The Sumerian tablets are older than the official date for the Vedas - but I can make a very good case for the Vedas being the same age as the tablets ... so I reckon they were more or less contemporaries, given a few hundred years or so. But the rishis that are referred to in the Vedic hymns are older than even that ...

Then there's China, of course ... the dragon is in their very oldest mythologies.

But from our perspective, all we can see are these huge waves of similar philosophies and belief systems washing across the world and roughly at the same time ... and so it's virtually impossible to see who seeded what for whom.

Same with shamanism ...