What do you think?
Rate this book
THE GREAT ANGEL a study of Israel's Second God
In this groundbreaking book, Barker claims that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic and that the roots of Christian Trinitarian theology lie in a pre-Christian Palestinian belief about angels derived from the ancient religion of Israel. Barker's beliefs are based on canonical and deutero-canonical works and literature from Qumran and rabbinic sources.
253 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 1992
12 people are currently reading
324 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
September 9, 2008
The first of her books that I read, back in 1999. I went out and read everything else she had written, and continue to maintain that enlightening habit. I've published several studies on the implications of her work for LDS readers, and that has led to much enlightening interaction, and a widening interest.
July 31, 2022
One of the best, most enlightening books on the religion of ancient Israel I’ve ever read.
Barker accounts for a massive amount of evidence that shows how the religion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel, especially as expressed during the First Temple period, was systematically replaced by King Josiah’s pro-Mosaic (and anti-anthropomorphic) Deuteronomic cultural revolution before, during, and after the Exile of 586 BC.
Gone was the polytheistic religion centered around the “trinity” of Father El Elyon, Mother Asherah, and their child (one of many), the Angel Yahweh (Israel’s “Second God”), as represented on earth by the Davidic Warrior-King Anointed with the olive oil (the Chrism, to become through ritual apotheosis the Messiah/Melchizedek) of Lady Wisdom’s Tree of Life (represented by the menorah/lamp stand, giving light to the Temple).
Barker delves into Temple symbolism and finally makes sense of all the strange-to-modern-readers imagery to show how the edifice was a microcosm of Creation, particularly the Garden, as envisioned in the ancient cosmology (see the book Hamlet’s Mill for more on that) and goes on to show how the First Temple theology was revised by competing factions of various priestly lineages until we get the version of the heavily-edited Old Testament that we have now.
Her logic is ruthless and inescapable: the current canon purposely left out and deliberately suppressed the scriptures of those who did not agree with the Reforms (such as the writers of the various books of Enoch), and believed the Second Temple was apostate.
She shows how Christianity was therefore not a “new” religion at all, but rather the restoration (coming at the end of the Tenth Jubilee) of all the aspects of First Temple theology that had been lost to mainstream Judaism centuries before in the brutal Monotheism of Second Isaiah and the Deuteronomic reforms, but preserved in the hidden tradition, with Christ as Yahweh.
She shows how the supposedly “Platonic” elements of early Christianity and writers like Philo were actually based in First Temple theology (which obviously came before Plato, and in fact was very likely to have influenced Pythagoras and the entire Greek philosophical tradition), and are not evidence of a syncretic new religion; she also accounts for the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostic texts, even Kabbalah.
The bottom line is, Barker brings a radically new paradigm to Biblical studies - I have yet to read anyone who takes all the evidence she presents into account to offer a more accurate framework. More people need to read her.
Barker accounts for a massive amount of evidence that shows how the religion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel, especially as expressed during the First Temple period, was systematically replaced by King Josiah’s pro-Mosaic (and anti-anthropomorphic) Deuteronomic cultural revolution before, during, and after the Exile of 586 BC.
Gone was the polytheistic religion centered around the “trinity” of Father El Elyon, Mother Asherah, and their child (one of many), the Angel Yahweh (Israel’s “Second God”), as represented on earth by the Davidic Warrior-King Anointed with the olive oil (the Chrism, to become through ritual apotheosis the Messiah/Melchizedek) of Lady Wisdom’s Tree of Life (represented by the menorah/lamp stand, giving light to the Temple).
Barker delves into Temple symbolism and finally makes sense of all the strange-to-modern-readers imagery to show how the edifice was a microcosm of Creation, particularly the Garden, as envisioned in the ancient cosmology (see the book Hamlet’s Mill for more on that) and goes on to show how the First Temple theology was revised by competing factions of various priestly lineages until we get the version of the heavily-edited Old Testament that we have now.
Her logic is ruthless and inescapable: the current canon purposely left out and deliberately suppressed the scriptures of those who did not agree with the Reforms (such as the writers of the various books of Enoch), and believed the Second Temple was apostate.
She shows how Christianity was therefore not a “new” religion at all, but rather the restoration (coming at the end of the Tenth Jubilee) of all the aspects of First Temple theology that had been lost to mainstream Judaism centuries before in the brutal Monotheism of Second Isaiah and the Deuteronomic reforms, but preserved in the hidden tradition, with Christ as Yahweh.
She shows how the supposedly “Platonic” elements of early Christianity and writers like Philo were actually based in First Temple theology (which obviously came before Plato, and in fact was very likely to have influenced Pythagoras and the entire Greek philosophical tradition), and are not evidence of a syncretic new religion; she also accounts for the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostic texts, even Kabbalah.
The bottom line is, Barker brings a radically new paradigm to Biblical studies - I have yet to read anyone who takes all the evidence she presents into account to offer a more accurate framework. More people need to read her.
July 7, 2012
Yahweh thundered in the heavens, and Elyon uttered his voice. (Psalms 18:13)
It's difficult to tell in most English translations, but in the Bible, there are many different ways of referring to God. The most significant are Yahweh (often translated as Lord), El (God), El Elyon (God Most High), and Elohim (Gods). It's interesting that throughout the Old Testament, whenever the phrase "son of God" is used in conjunction with Yahweh it always refers to humans, while whenever "son of God" is used with El/El Elyon/Elohim it refers to angels. This indicates that Elyon and Yahweh are actually two distinct personages, the Father and the Son.
In the earliest Jewish writings, Elyon was the Most High and Yahweh was one of his sons who was responsible for Israel. Elyon had other sons who were the gods of the other nations in the world (see Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls versions of Deuteronomy 32:8-9). References to Yahweh's fellow gods were removed during the Deuteronomic reform after the Babylonian Exile, however traces of them remain (Genesis 6:2-4, Deuteronomy 32:43, Hebrews 1:6, Isaiah 14:32, Daniel 10:13-14, Job 38:7, Jubilees 2:1,4, Psalms 29:1, Psalms 89:6, Psalms 58, etc.). They are sometimes called messengers, angels, princes, or other names.
English translations often obscure the passages about them. For example, Job 1:6 literally says "Now there was a day when the sons of El Elyon set themselves against Yahweh and Satan came also among them" but the King James Version translates this as "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them."
The Israelite god Yahwen and the Canaanite storm god Ba'al Haddu have a lot in common. For example, the theophanies of Yahweh resemble the appearances of Ba'al in the Ugaritic texts (Job 38, Ezekiel 1:4, Isaiah 24:19-23, 34:8-10, 42:13-15, 59:16-19).
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 (Isaiah 14:12), not to be confused with Satan who is a different god altogether. 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.
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).
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.
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)
After the Deuteronomic reform, Yahweh and Elyon were combined together into one god. 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.
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. Yahweh (Son of Man) is depicted as the young warrior god succeeding the elderly El Elyon (Ancient of Days).
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.
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).
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. 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).
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.
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.
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. 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).
There are a few scattered references that link men with angels. 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 (literally 'the man who sees God').
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).
The archangel Metatron used to be the man known as Enoch (3 Enoch 4:3). 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)
The early Jewish writer Philo believed in two separate gods, one called Logos (the Word). He describes the Logos in terms used for Yahweh, meaning that for Philo, Yahweh was the Word. To the early Christians, Jesus was Yahweh. He is called son of the Most High (Luke 1:32, Mark 5:7), but never son of the Lord. However, he is called Lord himself all throughout the New Testament. Early Christian writers such as Clement of Alexandria and Theodotus equated Jesus with Philo's Logos (see also John 1, 1 John 1:1-2, Revelation 19:11-16, Hebrews 4:12, 2 Peter 3:5-7).
Early Christians such as Justin, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, and Novatian believed there were two separate gods. 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 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.
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.
It's difficult to tell in most English translations, but in the Bible, there are many different ways of referring to God. The most significant are Yahweh (often translated as Lord), El (God), El Elyon (God Most High), and Elohim (Gods). It's interesting that throughout the Old Testament, whenever the phrase "son of God" is used in conjunction with Yahweh it always refers to humans, while whenever "son of God" is used with El/El Elyon/Elohim it refers to angels. This indicates that Elyon and Yahweh are actually two distinct personages, the Father and the Son.
In the earliest Jewish writings, Elyon was the Most High and Yahweh was one of his sons who was responsible for Israel. Elyon had other sons who were the gods of the other nations in the world (see Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls versions of Deuteronomy 32:8-9). References to Yahweh's fellow gods were removed during the Deuteronomic reform after the Babylonian Exile, however traces of them remain (Genesis 6:2-4, Deuteronomy 32:43, Hebrews 1:6, Isaiah 14:32, Daniel 10:13-14, Job 38:7, Jubilees 2:1,4, Psalms 29:1, Psalms 89:6, Psalms 58, etc.). They are sometimes called messengers, angels, princes, or other names.
English translations often obscure the passages about them. For example, Job 1:6 literally says "Now there was a day when the sons of El Elyon set themselves against Yahweh and Satan came also among them" but the King James Version translates this as "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them."
The Israelite god Yahwen and the Canaanite storm god Ba'al Haddu have a lot in common. For example, the theophanies of Yahweh resemble the appearances of Ba'al in the Ugaritic texts (Job 38, Ezekiel 1:4, Isaiah 24:19-23, 34:8-10, 42:13-15, 59:16-19).
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 (Isaiah 14:12), not to be confused with Satan who is a different god altogether. 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.
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).
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.
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)
After the Deuteronomic reform, Yahweh and Elyon were combined together into one god. 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.
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. Yahweh (Son of Man) is depicted as the young warrior god succeeding the elderly El Elyon (Ancient of Days).
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.
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).
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. 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).
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.
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.
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. 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).
There are a few scattered references that link men with angels. 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 (literally 'the man who sees God').
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).
The archangel Metatron used to be the man known as Enoch (3 Enoch 4:3). 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)
The early Jewish writer Philo believed in two separate gods, one called Logos (the Word). He describes the Logos in terms used for Yahweh, meaning that for Philo, Yahweh was the Word. To the early Christians, Jesus was Yahweh. He is called son of the Most High (Luke 1:32, Mark 5:7), but never son of the Lord. However, he is called Lord himself all throughout the New Testament. Early Christian writers such as Clement of Alexandria and Theodotus equated Jesus with Philo's Logos (see also John 1, 1 John 1:1-2, Revelation 19:11-16, Hebrews 4:12, 2 Peter 3:5-7).
Early Christians such as Justin, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, and Novatian believed there were two separate gods. 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 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.
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.
June 6, 2025
135 pages in, my brain was fried, so I had to stop (taking a break did not help at this point). There is a ton of information in this book! I think, for me at least, it would have been best to read it over a great amount of time (like 6+ months). Instead, I devoured it, then read slower and slower until I stopped.
I don't know if she actually began repeating herself, or if it just felt like it as she pulled more and more sources out.
She is of the opinion, in this book, that there is a Goddess who is an aspect of Yahweh - in other words Yahweh is both male and female (though maybe a little more complicated, as she conflates him with other great angels, too). In other writings and lectures, the author sounds -to me- like she believes there's a Mother Goddess, a Father God, and a Son God in Old Testament times, each of them separate entities.
I believe the Goddess and the angels are separate entities from Yahweh, though the angels may be given leave to speak as God if they are sharing messages from God.
I don't know if she actually began repeating herself, or if it just felt like it as she pulled more and more sources out.
She is of the opinion, in this book, that there is a Goddess who is an aspect of Yahweh - in other words Yahweh is both male and female (though maybe a little more complicated, as she conflates him with other great angels, too). In other writings and lectures, the author sounds -to me- like she believes there's a Mother Goddess, a Father God, and a Son God in Old Testament times, each of them separate entities.
I believe the Goddess and the angels are separate entities from Yahweh, though the angels may be given leave to speak as God if they are sharing messages from God.
May 30, 2018
Alright, so I may not be smart enough for this book. In fact, when I returned it to my father, I said I might need to read more before I can completely comprehend the ideas Barker conveys. That being said, this is the last in a series of books that she has written, and I think was meant to be a conclusion rather than a stand a lone.
Really phenomenal and poignant. It was thought out, clearly researched, and it makes me want to grab a duffel and head out to the holy land. I'm going to have to return to Barker at a later date when I'm older and wiser.
Really phenomenal and poignant. It was thought out, clearly researched, and it makes me want to grab a duffel and head out to the holy land. I'm going to have to return to Barker at a later date when I'm older and wiser.
December 20, 2021
The gist of this argument is that the Old Testament originally had polytheistic elements and that those polytheistic elements were found in 1st century Judaism, and so when Christians explained that Jesus was God, they could fit him into the pre-polytheistic aspects of the Jewish religion that survived. Notable things Barker sees as polytheistic are the angel of the Lord, the appearance of the Lord, the Wisdom of the Lord (a feminine deity, gender-wise expurgated), and even semi-divine men (Melchizedek, the king of Israel, etc).
Obviously, not very useful. However, the one thing that is useful is that Barker shows that there were weird things in the contemporary second temple literature that we should pay more attention to, particularly the Melcizedek stuff which seems to be in the background. I think that the Trinity is an area that is difficult to talk about, in part because it's a mystery and in part because of how suddenly it appears on the scene with very little comment in Scripture.
If you accept monotheism (and thus reject 90% of this book), then there's some interesting possibilities in terms of Jesus fittng into something that somehow made sense. Of course, that sends you down the path of seeing the Trinity in the Old Testament, which I am extremely reluctant to do because so much of it ends up forcing the text. So I basically think that our thinking should be extremely slow and extremely careful on this important point of New Testament theology.
Obviously, not very useful. However, the one thing that is useful is that Barker shows that there were weird things in the contemporary second temple literature that we should pay more attention to, particularly the Melcizedek stuff which seems to be in the background. I think that the Trinity is an area that is difficult to talk about, in part because it's a mystery and in part because of how suddenly it appears on the scene with very little comment in Scripture.
If you accept monotheism (and thus reject 90% of this book), then there's some interesting possibilities in terms of Jesus fittng into something that somehow made sense. Of course, that sends you down the path of seeing the Trinity in the Old Testament, which I am extremely reluctant to do because so much of it ends up forcing the text. So I basically think that our thinking should be extremely slow and extremely careful on this important point of New Testament theology.
May 7, 2022
Who was Yahweh? What was his relationship to Elroy? The author present a lot of "evidences" that Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible was commonly known as the son of the highest God until the time of the Deuteronomist. After this time, the hints of identify of Yahweh were still folk in the compiled scriptures and in the Jewish folk religion. It was these remnants and evidences, so the author argues, that allowed the early Christians to quickly identify Jesus as the Son of the God and integrate him into their scriptural narrative. It was an interesting read for me, and it left me wanting to understand all this more.
June 13, 2024
This is a dense read, hard to follow sometimes if you're not very familiar with the works of Philo and others, but fascinating and makes very good points.
December 4, 2011
The scholarship is much better than the writing. Barker doesn't use subheadings or anything else to guide the reader; consequently, I was often lost. Given That this is possibly the most important non-LDS work in the LDS apologetic corpus, I forged ahead and finished.
Barker pulls together a wide array of sources: Old Testament, apocryphal books, Talmud, targums, Philo, the New Testament, Gnostics, the Early Church Fathers, all to demonstrate that the trinity was not a pagan accretion into Christianity, but is based on the Old Testament belief of a Most High God (Elyon) and a second God (Yahweh), one of Elyon's sons. Although the Nicene Creed was formulated in the 4th century as an attempt to reconcile the one God of the OT with the three Gods of the NT, Barker demonstrated that the religion of ancient Israel, with Elyon and his Son Yahweh, became the background for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
I've read some critiques of Barker's work from New Mormon Challenge, The, where Paul Owen demonstrates that Barker's chapters on Philo, the Old Testament, and New Testament were under-argued. He does not try to refute the entire book, because it was too long and "ambitious" of a work, but therein Owen's critique fails; and understanding of the Early Church Fathers is crucial to understanding how the NT fits into Barker's thesis.
This is definitely worth the read, but if you don't have the patience, just read through the summaries at the end of the chapters.
Barker pulls together a wide array of sources: Old Testament, apocryphal books, Talmud, targums, Philo, the New Testament, Gnostics, the Early Church Fathers, all to demonstrate that the trinity was not a pagan accretion into Christianity, but is based on the Old Testament belief of a Most High God (Elyon) and a second God (Yahweh), one of Elyon's sons. Although the Nicene Creed was formulated in the 4th century as an attempt to reconcile the one God of the OT with the three Gods of the NT, Barker demonstrated that the religion of ancient Israel, with Elyon and his Son Yahweh, became the background for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
I've read some critiques of Barker's work from New Mormon Challenge, The, where Paul Owen demonstrates that Barker's chapters on Philo, the Old Testament, and New Testament were under-argued. He does not try to refute the entire book, because it was too long and "ambitious" of a work, but therein Owen's critique fails; and understanding of the Early Church Fathers is crucial to understanding how the NT fits into Barker's thesis.
This is definitely worth the read, but if you don't have the patience, just read through the summaries at the end of the chapters.
October 16, 2009
Every once in a while it is good to get in over your head with a book that is way beyond you. Margaret Barker, a methodist minister, book carefully amasses evidence from the Old and New Testaments, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, Dead sea scrolls, and other ancient text, supporting proposition that a sizable number of ancients both before and after Christ were polytheist, believing that Yahweh was the "great angel" presiding over a counsel of angel/gods (my phrase). Barker contends that Israel's monotheism stems from post exilic Israel. She also present's evidence that Jesus in the mortal Yahweh. Really quite interesting.
I have to acknowledge that i don't know enough about the dating of the more esoteric texts (for me that is everything outside the Bible)to be critical, but she does present a compelling argument. I know the book was not written for the general public, but It would be helpful to know the date, origin and providence of the texts she uses. It never really hurts to make a monograph more accessible. I also wish she would have quoted rather than merely cited to many of the Biblical references she used.
It was fairly short or it would have taken much longer to read. I liked The Great Angel.
I have to acknowledge that i don't know enough about the dating of the more esoteric texts (for me that is everything outside the Bible)to be critical, but she does present a compelling argument. I know the book was not written for the general public, but It would be helpful to know the date, origin and providence of the texts she uses. It never really hurts to make a monograph more accessible. I also wish she would have quoted rather than merely cited to many of the Biblical references she used.
It was fairly short or it would have taken much longer to read. I liked The Great Angel.
March 7, 2014
A curious fact gleaned from this intriguing book: Yahweh is not the name God gives to Moses as His own. Yahweh means, among other possibilities, 'he is who he will be'. But God begins His self-identification with the famous 'I am'.
I found the first two-thirds of the book very heavy going; with such a controversial premise it was difficult to assess the idea without a thorough background knowledge. The last third of the book ventured onto more familiar territory and was much easier to great and get a feel for the overall thesis. Am I convinced? At the end of the day, I'm left with ambiguous thoughts. Sure there's a good case here but, equally, there is - to my mind, at least - a great lacuna. At no time does the book tackle (or even mention) the Hebrew concept of the shaliach. I'm certainly no expert on the topic but I know enough to recognise it has a bearing - possibly a deep and profound bearing - on any study of a 'second god' in Jewish culture and therefore should not be overlooked.
For all that, however, this is a thoughtful and provocative resource.
I found the first two-thirds of the book very heavy going; with such a controversial premise it was difficult to assess the idea without a thorough background knowledge. The last third of the book ventured onto more familiar territory and was much easier to great and get a feel for the overall thesis. Am I convinced? At the end of the day, I'm left with ambiguous thoughts. Sure there's a good case here but, equally, there is - to my mind, at least - a great lacuna. At no time does the book tackle (or even mention) the Hebrew concept of the shaliach. I'm certainly no expert on the topic but I know enough to recognise it has a bearing - possibly a deep and profound bearing - on any study of a 'second god' in Jewish culture and therefore should not be overlooked.
For all that, however, this is a thoughtful and provocative resource.
January 5, 2009
The Great Angel - A study of Israel’s Second God by a Methodist Old Testament scholar from England named Margaret Barker will be of interest to those interested in the Mormon concept of God. In this Book Barker presents detailed evidence that early Israel was not as monotheistic as we suppose today and that early Christians identified Jesus with Yahweh, the son of Elyon (the High God). It also challenges the “higher critisism” idea that the deification of Jesus came from Hellenistic, pagan converts to Christianity. In reading this book I was surprised by how consistent early Christian beliefs about the Godhead were with LDS doctrine. You can visit Barker's website at Margaret Barker Biblical Scholar Some articles about the book are here, here and here. Or you can read the whole book on line if you like at the title link above.
October 18, 2012
Written for the serious religious scholar but not entirely inaccessible to the layperson. It's a vast collection of knowledge packed with incredible density without becoming unclear. It took me a long time to read because I would read until I had ingested several 'servings' of information and pause for a break, then realize I had only read five pages. Vastly illuminating, especially when reading with one's Mormon ears open.
January 23, 2009
Started strong, but really got boggen down in minutiae half way through.
November 14, 2010
My brother Evan will find this one really intriguing! It's heady, academic and VERY thoughtful, especially as I consider my own belief schema.
March 30, 2014
Good understanding of the Great Angel
Read
June 6, 2018Not sure how to rate this. It’s very convincing to me, however I’ve read nothing else on the topic and have no background in religious history or biblical studies. Barker makes a clear case here for a “polytheistic” Judaism of Old Testament times (El Elyon and one of his son’s, Yahweh) that paved the way for the first Christians’ adoption of Christ as the son of God. I’d recommend to anyone interested in the topic, with the caveat that it’s academic tone and countless references make a tedious, if thorough, read.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews