YHWH, Elohim, El, Sabaoth, Adonai; Will the real Demiurge please stand up?
wantt...@aol.com
scholars designates different aspects of the Godhead. The texts in Nag
Hammadi also mentions a series of names and designations for different
forces. But who's who? And moreover, is the Old Testament God a total
shit? What confuses me is two names consistently reappear in the Old
Testament. One is Elohim, the other YHWH. In the Nag Hammadi texts I
found one instance of Elohim being used. But there is no mention of
the tetragrammaton. And yet, other names for the Old Testament God are
found in Nag Hammadi, such as Saboath and Adonai. We have a cast of
Old Testament characters mentioned by their names; there's the Serpent
and Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel and Seth, Noah, Elijah, and so forth.
Since YHWH is such an important aspect of Jewish literature, and early
Christian Gnostics were largely Jews, then why is this name seemingly
absent from Gnostic literature? Who does it designate? Is there even a
basis for comparison? The only connection is one that is implied. A
story is given, and the story matches up to a similar story in the Old
Testament, except told from a different viewpoint, and then there's
the inevitable comparison "he who said there is no other God yada
yada" and so, of course, by deduction, you know who's who. Or do you?
Why isn't YHWH used directly? Why indirectly alluded to? And why is
Elohim used only once that I could find (if I'm wrong on this, please
correct me. I only did a search of the Nag Hammadi texts and certainly
far more Gnostic literature exists). Or is the problem that YHWH is a
series of consonants and not indicative of the pronunciation because
it lacks vowel sounds? And therefore, Yaltaboath could somehow be a
mispronunciation of the actual way YHWH was supposed to be pronounced?
Even more confusing are the Nag Hammadi texts themselves, which seem
to indicate more than one voice for the Old Testament God, and more
than one intention for it's purpose. Just look at the story of
Saboath. And that's supposed to be "the God of Israel".
From Nag Hammadi Apocalypse of Peter 82: ~15-30 (where Peter sees two
Saviors, one on the cross laughing, another standing by full of light)
(speaking about the Savior) "And he said to me "Be strong, for you are
the one to whom these mysteries have been given, to know them through
revelation, that he whom they crucified is the first born, and the
home of demons, and the stony vessel, in which they dwell, of Elohim,
of the cross which is under the law. And he who stands near him is the
living Savior, the first in him, whom they seized and released, who
stands joyfully looking at those who did him violence, while they are
divided among themselves"
I read this as matter/spirit duality. The material body of Jesus is
the realm of Elohim, it contains demons, it bears the cross. There's a
"the first in him which I took to mean the Spirit, the living Savior,
which cannot be crucified. The body on the cross is interestingly
specified as the "first born". The term first born in Bogomil
literature is Satan.(which I pulled from The Hidden Tradition in
Europe by Yuri Stoyanov).
But what does this passage imply about Elohim then? Good, bad, neutral
means to an end?
Elohim is the emanation of God into the physical universe according to
Jewish scholars. It's *not* the upper part of the Godhead. And because
this realm is a dualistic one (whether you look at it as good/evil or
body/spirit), therefore, they claim, God also manifests in a negative
way "in this universe", and you also have an evil God to go with the
good one. Or else God is perceived through our unavoidably dualistic
universal lens as both good and evil. This duality resolves itself at
upper levels they say.
The only comparable word is Eloim which is found in the several
versions of the
Apocryphon of John, and the three version of it are confused as to
whether Eloim is righteous or unrighteous. If anyone knows where the
term Elohim occurs elsewhere in Gnostic literature please post.
Saboath is one of the least confusing of the entities because in
several texts it seems to indicate that it's a repentative aspect of
the demiurge. It's also the God of Israel. In Origin of the World
Saboath takes the place of Yaltaboath, his father who created him.
Yaltaboath is cast down, and his face darkens. A heavenly war ensues
in the process. Saboath is raised to a higher level in heaven and is
taught by Sophia. I read this as implying that the manifestation of
God in this realm underwent some kind of transformation, or is
continually undergoing one, because these texts should not always be
read in past tense. The demiurge is being transformed since one of his
emanations has taken his place. An emanation is synonymous with
illusion. Whatever's taking place is within the demiurge himself. Some
sort of fracture, war, remaking, what have you.
In Apocryphon of John, Sabaoth is paired with Adonaiou, which I'm
presuming is comparable to the Old Testament Adonai. In Hypostasis of
the
Archons Sabaoth is also the redeemed element, and it is he who creates
and dwells on the Chariot we read about in Ezekial's vision. Ditto in
Origin of the World, where Sabaoth is paired with Sophia Zoe. In fact,
in On the Origin of the Word, it's stated 114:16 "Now these things
were revealed by the will of Sabaoth and his Christ to the souls who
will come to the molded bodies." In the Second Treatise of Seth there
is (Christ speaking) 52 20-25 "And all of these, with the race that
had come down, flee from him who had fled from the throne to the
Sophia of hope, since she had earlier given the sign concerning *us
and all the ones with me* -those of the race of Adonaios".
Except in Greek Myth he's not such a nice dude. Homeric Hymn to
Demeter of the seventh century BC.
http://www.san.beck.org/Eleusis-1.html#2
<<I begin to sing of rich-haired Demeter, awful goddess - of her and
her trim-ankled daughter whom Aidoneus rapt away, given to him by
all-seeing Zeus the loud-thunderer.>>
Here, Aidoneus is the God of the underworld, later Hades and Pluto.
And this guy sits on a chariot. (And why the "awful" adjective for
Demeter? A
mistranslation from the Greek?) And <<Also I will tell how he rapt me
away by the deep plan of my father the Son of Cronos and carried me
off beneath the depths of the earth, >> indicates a collusion with the
thunderer himself. But yes yes, it's all syncretic and evolved. Into
what?
In the Gospel of Egyptians Sabaoth is also paired with Adonaios, and
is the creation of Sakla. (There's an interesting implication in this
text because Cain is paired with the Sun. Sakla is the one who says "I
am a
jealous God....").
Sabaoth is also mentioned in The Testimony of the Truth 73:30. This
text is half destroyed and difficult to read.
The various entities with names in Nag Hammadi beginning with "el" are
tricky. Most are referred to a positive beings, emanating from the
primary Godhead. Especially in the Egyptian literature. (Elaie,
Elainos, Elenos, Elasso, Eleleth, Elelioupheus, Elemaon, Elien, etc..)
But others as in the Apocryphon of John and Origin of the World as
said to be offspring of Yaltaboath. (For example Eloaios, Eloai,
Eloaio, Eloaiou.)
YHWH is most curiously nowhere to be found. There is a Yave in the
Apocryphon of John, but there are posters here who claim that is not
YWHY just as Eloim is not Elohim in the same text. There's a Yao in
Apocryphon (one of Yaltaboath's offspring). Interestingly there's also
a Yao in Origin of the World, 101:10, Yao is the firstborn of
Yaldaboath.
Wantthat99
Neville Lindsay
<wantt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:62823368.02070...@posting.google.com...
[---]
> http://www.san.beck.org/Eleusis-1.html#2
> <<I begin to sing of rich-haired Demeter, awful goddess - of her and
> her trim-ankled daughter whom Aidoneus rapt away, given to him by
> all-seeing Zeus the loud-thunderer.>>
> Here, Aidoneus is the God of the underworld, later Hades and Pluto.
> And this guy sits on a chariot. (And why the "awful" adjective for
> Demeter? A mistranslation from the Greek?)
Could it be 'aweful' perhaps. Not orful (you know, like orften/orfan in
Pirates of Penzance).
NL
Agamemnon
> scholars designates different aspects of the Godhead. The texts in Nag
> Hammadi also mentions a series of names and designations for different
> forces. But who's who? And moreover, is the Old Testament God a total
> shit? What confuses me is two names consistently reappear in the Old
> Testament. One is Elohim, the other YHWH. In the Nag Hammadi texts I
> found one instance of Elohim being used. But there is no mention of
> the tetragrammaton. And yet, other names for the Old Testament God are
> found in Nag Hammadi, such as Saboath and Adonai. We have a cast of
Saboath was the Army and therefore El Saboath was the General of the Army.
The term Elohim therefore meant Generals.
The term Adonai means nothng more than Lord and the term YHWH is a
corruption of the proto-Greek root of the Pelasgian Greek word Aigelaion or
Homeric term Akhaiwoi (and the Hittite term Ahhiyawa and the Egyptian term
Ekwesh) which was used by Mycenaean Philistines in the form of Agios to
denote Lord.
> Old Testament characters mentioned by their names; there's the Serpent
> and Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel and Seth, Noah, Elijah, and so forth.
> Since YHWH is such an important aspect of Jewish literature, and early
> Christian Gnostics were largely Jews, then why is this name seemingly
> absent from Gnostic literature? Who does it designate? Is there even a
Because it was added later on to replace Adonai. In the oldest text of the
Bible the Greek Septuagint the letters YHWH do not appear. Both Adonai and
the what later became YHWH are rendered Kyrios or Lord.
In Greece most of the churches are name Agios Kyrios showing first that YHWH
is a derivative of Agios and second that both mean Lord.
The correct meaning of Aigelaion or Akhaiwoi or YHWH was "Sea Shore
Dweller/s" which is why the corruption Yah, Yaw or Yam was used by the
Phoenicians to a the name of their sea god, since it meant the same as
Admiral.
So where as the Elohim was a land Army the Aigelaion were the Sea Peoples
Army and this is how the derivative Ekwesh is used in Egyptian text
referring the Achaean Greeks who attacked Egypt in 1206 and 1175 BC along
with the Pelast or Philistines who were Aegialean Pelasgi or Pelasgi of the
Sea Shore. These Greek invasions of Egypt is what the biblical story of the
Exodus is based on.
> basis for comparison? The only connection is one that is implied. A
> story is given, and the story matches up to a similar story in the Old
> Testament, except told from a different viewpoint, and then there's
> the inevitable comparison "he who said there is no other God yada
> yada" and so, of course, by deduction, you know who's who. Or do you?
> Why isn't YHWH used directly? Why indirectly alluded to? And why is
Because YHWH was inserted into the Hebrew translation of the Bible from 65
BC onward. It was never in the original text. YHWH was the title of Sea Lord
or Admiral and was used by the Philistines when they ruled over Palestine
and eventually was used by the kings of Israel and Judea in their titles in
place of the prefixes and suffixes Melech and El.
YHWH was also used as the Aramaic of the Great Kings of the Persians after
they conquered Egypt and became Pharaoh, in exchange for the Median word
Magus which became the Greek word Megas as in the tiled of Megalexandros or
Alexander the Great.
The Median word Magus and the Greek Aigelaion are from the same root since
both the Medes and the Pelasgians originated from Anatolia.
The original name of the Macedonians or Machedni is the intermediate form,
since the Greek word Makos means Great Height. Thus the ultimate root is
*Mewalawi (where W is the Greek Digamma or Phoenicians Wav.) from which the
modern Greek word Megalos (Big) derives and means that the original people
that formed this Pelasgian tribe called themselves the Giants.
From Mewalawia you get Aigelaia which was the original name for Greece and
also Helia (Elia) which is a region of Greece from which the modern name of
Hellas derives.
> Elohim used only once that I could find (if I'm wrong on this, please
> correct me. I only did a search of the Nag Hammadi texts and certainly
> far more Gnostic literature exists). Or is the problem that YHWH is a
> series of consonants and not indicative of the pronunciation because
> it lacks vowel sounds? And therefore, Yaltaboath could somehow be a
> mispronunciation of the actual way YHWH was supposed to be pronounced?
> Even more confusing are the Nag Hammadi texts themselves, which seem
> to indicate more than one voice for the Old Testament God, and more
> than one intention for it's purpose. Just look at the story of
> Saboath. And that's supposed to be "the God of Israel".
WRONG.
The god of Israel was the Pharaoh of Egypt since this is admitted to by
Jeremiah who describes the historic account of Pharaoh Necho II giving away
all of this vassels in Syria-Palestine to Nebuchadnesser the king of
Babylon.
In the following quote form the original Greek text of the bible the term
Lord (since YHWH was not introduced into the bible until 65BC.) refers to
Pharaoh.
"Jeremiah (Bible LXX)
24:7 And the king of Egypt came no more out of his land: for the king of
Babylon took away all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the river of
Egypt as far as the river Euphrates.
2 (34:2) Thus said the Lord; Make to thyself bonds and yokes, and put them
about thy neck,
3 (34:3) and thou shalt send them to the king of Idumea, and to the king of
Moab, and to the king of the children of Ammon, and to the king of Tyre, and
to the king of Sidon, by the hands of their messengers that come to meet
them at Jerusalem to Sedekias king of Juda.
4 (34:4) And thou shalt commission them to say to their lords, Thus said
the Lord God of Israel; Thus shall ye say to your lords;
5 (34:5) I have made the earth by my great power, and with my high arm, and
I will give it to whomsoever it shall seem good in mine eyes.
6 (34:6) I gave the earth to Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon to serve him,
and the wild beasts of the field to labour for him.
7
8 (34:8) And the nation and kingdom, all that shall not put their neck
under the yoke of the king of Babylon, with sword and famine will I visit
them, saith the Lord, until they are consumed by his hand.
9 (34:9) And hearken ye not to your false prophets, nor to them that divine
to you, nor to them that foretell events by dreams to you, nor to your
auguries, nor your sorcerers, that say, Ye shall by no means work for the
king of Babylon:
10 (34:10) for they prophesy lies to you, to remove you far from your land.
11 (34:11) But the nation which shall put its neck under the yoke of the
king of Babylon, and serve him, I will even leave it upon its land, and it
shall serve him, and dwell in it.
12 ś (34:12) I spoke also to Sedekias king of Juda according to all these
words, saying, Put your neck into the yoke, and serve the king of Babylon."
It was only after 65 BC that YHWH was introduced into the bible. Previously
Kyrios (or Adomai) had replaced the name of the Egyptian king, either Necho
II or Ramses III or whoever when the Greek text was re-copied and edited in
about 160 BC. This was done inorder to hide that fact that Syria-Palestine
was an Egyptian vassal, thus Pharaoh was elevated to the position of Great
King like the kings of Persia who title was appropriated and then made into
god.
>
> From Nag Hammadi Apocalypse of Peter 82: ~15-30 (where Peter sees two
> Saviors, one on the cross laughing, another standing by full of light)
>
> (speaking about the Savior) "And he said to me "Be strong, for you are
> the one to whom these mysteries have been given, to know them through
> revelation, that he whom they crucified is the first born, and the
> home of demons, and the stony vessel, in which they dwell, of Elohim,
> of the cross which is under the law. And he who stands near him is the
This sounds like Idolatry to me.
The term Demons or Demonoi refers to the Household Gods of the Greeks and
Romans when were their own family members. The stony vessel is clearly a
reference to an stone or clay icon or sculpture of their appearance.
> living Savior, the first in him, whom they seized and released, who
> stands joyfully looking at those who did him violence, while they are
> divided among themselves"
>
> I read this as matter/spirit duality. The material body of Jesus is
> the realm of Elohim, it contains demons, it bears the cross. There's a
> "the first in him which I took to mean the Spirit, the living Savior,
> which cannot be crucified. The body on the cross is interestingly
> specified as the "first born". The term first born in Bogomil
> literature is Satan.(which I pulled from The Hidden Tradition in
> Europe by Yuri Stoyanov).
> But what does this passage imply about Elohim then? Good, bad, neutral
> means to an end?
It implies that Elohim was the army of Caesar. The cross which is under the
law means the Law of Caesar. The Jews were changing their region which had
only been invented in 65 BC to transfer godhood from the ancient Pharaohs of
Egypt to the new ruler of Egypt, Caeasar. They were also bringing it inline
with the mystery cults of Tammuz, Dionysus and Osiris by creating a dying
and resurrecting god.
Other account have Jesus getting married and having children thus the Jews
were invention a complete pantheon of god to identify with those of the
Romans.
> Elohim is the emanation of God into the physical universe according to
> Jewish scholars. It's *not* the upper part of the Godhead. And because
> this realm is a dualistic one (whether you look at it as good/evil or
> body/spirit), therefore, they claim, God also manifests in a negative
> way "in this universe", and you also have an evil God to go with the
> good one. Or else God is perceived through our unavoidably dualistic
> universal lens as both good and evil. This duality resolves itself at
> upper levels they say.
>
> The only comparable word is Eloim which is found in the several
> versions of the
> Apocryphon of John, and the three version of it are confused as to
> whether Eloim is righteous or unrighteous. If anyone knows where the
> term Elohim occurs elsewhere in Gnostic literature please post.
>
> Saboath is one of the least confusing of the entities because in
> several texts it seems to indicate that it's a repentative aspect of
> the demiurge. It's also the God of Israel. In Origin of the World
> Saboath takes the place of Yaltaboath, his father who created him.
> Yaltaboath is cast down, and his face darkens. A heavenly war ensues
POPPYCOCK. The Saboath was the Army of Pharaoh at testified by multiple
sources.
> in the process. Saboath is raised to a higher level in heaven and is
> taught by Sophia. I read this as implying that the manifestation of
> God in this realm underwent some kind of transformation, or is
> continually undergoing one, because these texts should not always be
> read in past tense. The demiurge is being transformed since one of his
> emanations has taken his place. An emanation is synonymous with
> illusion. Whatever's taking place is within the demiurge himself. Some
> sort of fracture, war, remaking, what have you.
>
>
> In Apocryphon of John, Sabaoth is paired with Adonaiou, which I'm
> presuming is comparable to the Old Testament Adonai. In Hypostasis of
> the
Are you shure that this want Adonis another dying and resurrecting god.
> Archons Sabaoth is also the redeemed element, and it is he who creates
> and dwells on the Chariot we read about in Ezekial's vision. Ditto in
Pharaohs chariot I presume. What use would a real god have for a chariot ?
> Origin of the World, where Sabaoth is paired with Sophia Zoe. In fact,
> in On the Origin of the Word, it's stated 114:16 "Now these things
> were revealed by the will of Sabaoth and his Christ to the souls who
> will come to the molded bodies." In the Second Treatise of Seth there
> is (Christ speaking) 52 20-25 "And all of these, with the race that
> had come down, flee from him who had fled from the throne to the
> Sophia of hope, since she had earlier given the sign concerning *us
> and all the ones with me* -those of the race of Adonaios".
>
> Except in Greek Myth he's not such a nice dude. Homeric Hymn to
> Demeter of the seventh century BC.
> http://www.san.beck.org/Eleusis-1.html#2
> <<I begin to sing of rich-haired Demeter, awful goddess - of her and
> her trim-ankled daughter whom Aidoneus rapt away, given to him by
> all-seeing Zeus the loud-thunderer.>>
> Here, Aidoneus is the God of the underworld, later Hades and Pluto.
> And this guy sits on a chariot. (And why the "awful" adjective for
> Demeter? A
FULL OF AWE
> mistranslation from the Greek?) And <<Also I will tell how he rapt me
> away by the deep plan of my father the Son of Cronos and carried me
> off beneath the depths of the earth, >> indicates a collusion with the
> thunderer himself. But yes yes, it's all syncretic and evolved. Into
> what?
POPPYCOCK.
What would a god want with a wife or to father a whole race ? Aidoneus or
Hades was the Hittite king Hattusilis.
>
> In the Gospel of Egyptians Sabaoth is also paired with Adonaios, and
> is the creation of Sakla. (There's an interesting implication in this
> text because Cain is paired with the Sun. Sakla is the one who says "I
> am a
> jealous God....").
> Sabaoth is also mentioned in The Testimony of the Truth 73:30. This
> text is half destroyed and difficult to read.
So basically we have Pharaohs Army sent after the Hittite king Hattusilis.
>
> The various entities with names in Nag Hammadi beginning with "el" are
> tricky. Most are referred to a positive beings, emanating from the
> primary Godhead. Especially in the Egyptian literature. (Elaie,
> Elainos, Elenos, Elasso, Eleleth, Elelioupheus, Elemaon, Elien, etc..)
All of these are names for the Greeks or Hellenes.
> But others as in the Apocryphon of John and Origin of the World as
> said to be offspring of Yaltaboath. (For example Eloaios, Eloai,
> Eloaio, Eloaiou.)
>
> YHWH is most curiously nowhere to be found. There is a Yave in the
> Apocryphon of John, but there are posters here who claim that is not
> YWHY just as Eloim is not Elohim in the same text. There's a Yao in
> Apocryphon (one of Yaltaboath's offspring). Interestingly there's also
> a Yao in Origin of the World, 101:10, Yao is the firstborn of
> Yaldaboath.
Sounds to me like the scribe took some ancient Egyptian Pharonic text and
dissembled it. Only mortals need to have children therefore Yaldaboath must
have been a mortal king.
Agamemnon
"Agamemnon" <replace.wi...@hello.to> wrote in message
news:agb96b$qpg$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> The Median word Magus and the Greek Aigelaion are from the same root since
> both the Medes and the Pelasgians originated from Anatolia.
>
> The original name of the Macedonians or Machedni is the intermediate form,
> since the Greek word Makos means Great Height. Thus the ultimate root is
> *Mewalawi (where W is the Greek Digamma or Phoenicians Wav.) from which
the
> modern Greek word Megalos (Big) derives and means that the original people
> that formed this Pelasgian tribe called themselves the Giants.
>
> From Mewalawia you get Aigelaia which was the original name for Greece and
> also Helia (Elia) which is a region of Greece from which the modern name
of
> Hellas derives.
>
I forgot to mention that the name of the Enchelenes who Cadmus took with him
when he conqured the Illyrians is also from the same root and Aigelaians.
The Enchelenes, Aigelaians, Hellenes and Makedni were all one and the same
tribe the Mewalawi.
Matt Giwer
> The Old Testament has specific names for God, which according to Torah
> scholars designates different aspects of the Godhead. The texts in Nag
> Hammadi also mentions a series of names and designations for different
> forces. But who's who? And moreover, is the Old Testament God a total
> shit?
Perhaps you have missed some other posts. SHA is about history. It is
reasonable to discuss the history of gods. It is reasonable to discuss
the historicity of the OT.
Discusssions of religion per se are neither reasonable nor appropriate.
Discussions of what believers think about religions are not appropriate.
--
The difference between MS-DOS and MS-Windows it The Big Red Switch
and the Blue Screen Of Death.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1518
Dreamsnake
> (Sorry in advance for the repost, but it's not coming up on my browser.)
>
> The Old Testament has specific names for God, which according to Torah
> scholars designates different aspects of the Godhead. The texts in Nag
> Hammadi also mentions a series of names and designations for different
> forces. But who's who? And moreover, is the Old Testament God a total
> shit? What confuses me is two names consistently reappear in the Old
> Testament. One is Elohim, the other YHWH. In the Nag Hammadi texts I
> found one instance of Elohim being used. But there is no mention of
> the tetragrammaton. And yet, other names for the Old Testament God are
> found in Nag Hammadi, such as Saboath and Adonai. We have a cast of
> Old Testament characters mentioned by their names; there's the Serpent
> and Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel and Seth, Noah, Elijah, and so forth.
> Since YHWH is such an important aspect of Jewish literature, and early
> Christian Gnostics were largely Jews,
Were they? How do you know this? And what does it mean, to you,
to be a Jew under those circumstances?
> then why is this name seemingly absent from Gnostic literature?
I dunno, but I can think of some possibilities. Determining whether some
of them are correct would require detailed knowledge of how Jews used
language in the first centuries of this era, something neither of us has.
1. The Gnostics were not Jews. What they knew of Jewish religious
beliefs was based on what Jews chose to make available, and the
name YHVH was too secret for outsiders even to know about most
of the time.
2. The Gnostics, following long Jewish tradition, regarded the name as
having a special power, but they considered the name to be that of an
arch-demon. They refused even to write it down lest it summon him.
3. The Gnostics, not respecting YHVH as traditional Jews did, refused
to employ a name that was associated with special sanctity.
4. The Gnostics simply chose Jewish words and names arbitrarily as
having some power, and random chance dictates that only one of the
texts we have uses YHVH.
5. Some Gnostics used YHVH, but it was not a name used by the
Valentinian and Sethian groups, which seem to be disproportionately
included in surviving texts.
Note that only #1 *requires* that the Gnostics not be Jews. The other
possibilities are compatible with either Jewish or non-Jewish Gnostics.
Also, some are not mutually exclusive, nor is this list meant to be
exhaustive.
> Who does it designate? Is there even a
> basis for comparison? The only connection is one that is implied. A
> story is given, and the story matches up to a similar story in the Old
> Testament, except told from a different viewpoint, and then there's
> the inevitable comparison "he who said there is no other God yada
> yada" and so, of course, by deduction, you know who's who. Or do you?
> Why isn't YHWH used directly? Why indirectly alluded to? And why is
> Elohim used only once that I could find (if I'm wrong on this, please
> correct me. I only did a search of the Nag Hammadi texts and certainly
> far more Gnostic literature exists). Or is the problem that YHWH is a
> series of consonants and not indicative of the pronunciation because
> it lacks vowel sounds?
I would certainly expect languages like Greek and (possibly) Coptic to
include vowels to indicate pronunciation, as is the case with Yave,
discussed at the end of the post. When searching for analogues to
Jewish names in Nag Hammadi, you are looking for words that have
crossed between, not just languages, but language families, and the
habits of pronunciation and representation will be quite different.
> And therefore, Yaltaboath could somehow be a
> mispronunciation of the actual way YHWH was supposed to be pronounced?
Answering that question would require a linguist. Since I do not have
one, I shall offer instead some explanations given by Frances Legge in
_Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_, vol. 2, pp. 46-47. (Not my
favorite source, but it is all I have handy at the moment.)
1. <Hebrew> "son of Chaos"
2. <Hebrew> "Lord (or Jah) God of the Fathers"
3. "some name or epithet of God current among the Semitic
Babylonians which had fallen into disuse and had been much corrupted
by being turned into and out of demotic"
Legge, p. 47 n. 3, offers the following comments about heresiologists,
none of which I have double-checked.
* Irenaeus 1:28 "in summarizing the teaching of Saturninus says that the
god of the Jews was one of the (world-creating angels)."
* Hippolytus 5:7 "also calls Jaldabaoth 'a fiery god' and "a fourth
number,' " the latter of which sounds a little like the Tetragrammaton.
* Epiphanius Haer. 37:4 says, " 'And this Ialdabaoth is, they [the
Ophites] say, the God of the Jews.' "
If Legge is being accurate, the case for identifying Yaldabaoth with the
Creator of Genesis 2-3 would seem to be pretty strong, whether or not
the name is a transcription error for YHVH.
> Even more confusing are the Nag Hammadi texts themselves, which seem
> to indicate more than one voice for the Old Testament God, and more
> than one intention for it's purpose. Just look at the story of
> Saboath. And that's supposed to be "the God of Israel".
They could also indicate a misperception by outsiders that the Jews
were talking about different beings, not different names for the same
being. Or they could indicate a belief that the authors of the OT were
confused or misled into thinking that different names applied to the
same being--for example, the Creator claiming to be Sabaoth. Or
they could indicate a belief that the OT was rewritten and edited as
propaganda for the Cosmocrator.
In other words, it is not necessary to assume that the Nag Hammadi
texts all mean for all these names to apply to aspects of the same God,
even though that is the assumption you make. The authors do not
hesitate to correct the OT and will even say outright that it is wrong, so
there is good reason *not* to work to make the characters be the
same as those in orthodox Judaism. They also do not hesitate to make
the characters entirely different despite having the same name--thus
Adamas is a good character in some places but an evil tyrant in Pistis
Sophia. Abel is the son of the Demiurge in the Apocryphon of John
but the son of Adam in the Hypostasis of the Archons, so he is divine
in one and human in the other.
[...]
> Saboath is one of the least confusing of the entities because in
> several texts it seems to indicate that it's a repentative aspect of
> the demiurge.
I do not see in the Apocryphon of John that Sabaoth is repentant.
And in texts where he does repent, I do not see it stated that he is an
aspect of the Demiurge, but rather a son or creation. It is up to you
to demonstrate that "aspect" is an appropriate way to interpret
offspring in Gnostic texts, not something to assume.
> It's also the God of Israel.
So where do the texts say that?
> In Origin of the World
> Saboath takes the place of Yaltaboath, his father who created him.
> Yaltaboath is cast down, and his face darkens. A heavenly war ensues
> in the process. Saboath is raised to a higher level in heaven and is
> taught by Sophia. I read this as implying that the manifestation of
> God in this realm underwent some kind of transformation, or is
> continually undergoing one, because these texts should not always be
> read in past tense. The demiurge is being transformed since one of his
> emanations has taken his place. An emanation is synonymous with
> illusion. Whatever's taking place is within the demiurge himself. Some
> sort of fracture, war, remaking, what have you.
Where do you get that an emanation is synonymous with illusion? I
have never heard such a thing.
> In Apocryphon of John, Sabaoth is paired with Adonaiou, which I'm
> presuming is comparable to the Old Testament Adonai.
That seems reasonable. But if Sabaoth does not have the same value
in the Apocryphon that he does in the Hypostasis (something we
cannot assume, since different authors clearly use the same figures in
different ways), then anything you deduce about Adonai from
Sabaoth in the Hypostasis is meaningless.
[...]
> Except in Greek Myth he's not such a nice dude. Homeric Hymn to
> Demeter of the seventh century BC.
> http://www.san.beck.org/Eleusis-1.html#2
> <<I begin to sing of rich-haired Demeter, awful goddess - of her and
> her trim-ankled daughter whom Aidoneus rapt away, given to him by
> all-seeing Zeus the loud-thunderer.>>
> Here, Aidoneus is the God of the underworld, later Hades and Pluto.
> And this guy sits on a chariot. (And why the "awful" adjective for
> Demeter? A
> mistranslation from the Greek?)
No. "Awful" as in inspiring awe, reverence, fear and trembling. Use
a dictionary.
[...]
> YHWH is most curiously nowhere to be found. There is a Yave in the
> Apocryphon of John, but there are posters here who claim that is not
> YWHY just as Eloim is not Elohim in the same text.
As one of those posters, I want to remind you that Yave cannot be
YHVH according to your standards. YHVH creates Eve; Yave is
Eve's offspring and is called either Cain or Abel (probably the latter).
YHVH is a creator; Yave is not.
One could argue that they are "the same" if the author means to say
that Genesis is wrong and that YHVH, rather than being the all-
powerful lord and creator of the universe, is a two-bit deceptive
bastard. But somehow I get the impression you are not ready to
allow that interpretation.
[...]
I am not sure what you expect from this. If you want to, you can come
up with any interpretations you want from Gnostic books; thinking and
imagination are still free. But if you try to strike up a conversation
about this, someone or other is going to hammer you. You have some
hangup about names: if they have similar names, they must be the same
being. You have a hangup about allegory: if the Gnostics used some of
the OT allegorically, they must accept the whole thing, or at least accept
the relevant books in the way the authors intended.
Think of it this way. A lot of people say that (some) Satanists are
Christians. After all, they talk about "Satan," who is a Christian
character, and cuss out "God," "Jehovah," and "Christ," who are
Christian characters. They use an (inverted) cross as their symbol,
and Christians use crosses as their symbol. They say the Lords'
Prayer (backwards, of course), and perform the (Black) Mass.
Of course, if you ask Christians and Satanists whether Satanists are
Christians, you will get a resounding "NO!" You will also learn that
the Satanists in question do not accept the Christian scriptures despite
toying with parts of it; do not worship the same deities or think that
"Satan" is just an aspect of "God"; and that very little of what you can
find in Christianity applies to Satanism in any straightforward way. In
other words, you have to check with those Satanists on what they
mean at every step of the way; you cannot generalize from what you
know of Christianity and learn anything meaningful.
Dreamsnake
klaus schilling
>
> Think of it this way. A lot of people say that (some) Satanists are
> Christians. After all, they talk about "Satan," who is a Christian
> character, and cuss out "God," "Jehovah," and "Christ," who are
> Christian characters. They use an (inverted) cross as their symbol,
> and Christians use crosses as their symbol. They say the Lords'
> Prayer (backwards, of course), and perform the (Black) Mass.
>
> Of course, if you ask Christians and Satanists whether Satanists are
> Christians, you will get a resounding "NO!" You will also learn that
> the Satanists in question do not accept the Christian scriptures despite
> toying with parts of it; do not worship the same deities or think that
> "Satan" is just an aspect of "God"; and that very little of what you can
> find in Christianity applies to Satanism in any straightforward way. In
> other words, you have to check with those Satanists on what they
> mean at every step of the way; you cannot generalize from what you
> know of Christianity and learn anything meaningful.
>
because mainstream christianity supports marriage and procreation,
which, in Satornil's doctrine, and also mine, is the work of satan.
Klaus Schilling
Dreamsnake
> I call most mainstream christians 'satanists',
> because mainstream christianity supports marriage and procreation,
> which, in Satornil's doctrine, and also mine, is the work of satan.
I could agree. And I have spoken with people who would doubtless
call *you* a "satanist" for being so far from the mainstream. But I
had in mind only people who identify themselves as Satanists, praise
Satan and curse Christ, say Black Masses, etc. Calling such people
"Christians" adds nothing to your understanding of them, unlesss you
are a Neopagan with an axe to grind.
Dreamsnake