Reflecting on my studies in Comparative Religion and mythology, I’ve come to understand and appreciate why Christianity came to replace the pagan world-view. Some people say it was because the Roman Catholic Church under “Constantine” crammed it down everyone’s throat. But this explanation is over-simplified and inaccurate. The truth is Roman society converted to Catholic Christianity by choice, by popular consensus. Constantine adopted Catholic Christianity because he knew that he needed the support of Christians if he wanted to be emperor. In Constantine’s day Christians were no longer the minority and persecuting them was not an option.
Before Constantine came along Roman society had already tipped in favor of Christianity, viz. the Catholic version, by popular choice. Why? Because Christianity offered a narrative that the majority found preferable in comparison to the murky and arcane pagan myths. And Gnostic Christianity likewise was too deep and arcane for most people. I’ve come to appreciate that Gnostic myth and certain pagan myths share a dark view of creation and divine providence. They can be regarded together as existential statements that address the true enigma of human existence.
Those readers who are familiar with Gnostic thought are aware of the Gnostic creation myth, of the Fall of Sophia and the Demiurge, and the Archons, and the creation of humanity and the rest. The pagan myths also offer a dark statement on the origin and purpose of existence, which we will explore in this essay. But getting back to popular Roman culture, it’s not the sort of thing that most people would prefer, especially when someone else comes along and offers an alternative story of this wonderful almighty God who created the world and mankind with the most noble intentions in mind. Christianity tells this very simple story that caters to the lowest common denominator. It’s not a myth for thinking people. It’s a myth for people who want a king to dictate and give them all the answers and re-assure them that everything is under control. This has been the psychology behind mainstream Christian theology and spirituality to this day.
Certainly the pagan myths of the gods and creation offer no such comfort and there is no attempt to white-wash the meaning of life. There is no moral or ethical pretense in which people can look to be re-assured. There is no simple almighty God and a fall guy to take the blame. Instead, it’s a quarrelsome rabble of deities who fight each other, and in the midst of the carnage mankind is created. This was a very common view in the ancient world; and at least two very prominent versions of this story, with similar themes, were shared by the ancient Greeks and Babylonians.
The Babylonian creation account, called the “Enuma Elish”, provides an excellent example of what mainstream Christians don’t want to see in their creation story:
According to the Enuma Elish our cosmic order came into existence as the result of a war among the gods (the so-called “Anunnaki”). There were two factions led by the warrior god Marduk on one side and the fearsome mother-goddess Tiamat leading the other.
In the end, Marduk was victorious and Tiamat was slain in a most gruesome manner. Marduk then took the mutilated body and entrails of Tiamat and used these to create heaven and earth. Mankind was created from the blood of Tiamat’s chief officer named Kingu, who was taken captive and executed [1]. For many pagans in Mesopotamia this was how our world originated. Mankind was created as a slave-race to the gods and was obligated to submit and seek atonement (bloody sacrifices).
It’s an important detail in the Babylonian creation story that Mankind was not created from some benign substance and circumstance. To the contrary, Mankind exists as the result of war, judgment and blood. The origin and legacy of Man is rooted in a slain enemy who was judged guilty before the gods. This is where human “life” originates.
Another macabre creation account comes from the legendary Greek sage Orpheus, in an account known as the “Sparagmos” (the “Tearing”)[2]. This account describes human origins against the back-drop of the cosmic battle between the Titans and the Olympians led by Zeus.
The conflict began when the Titans kidnapped and devoured Zeus’s infant son and heir Dionysos. Angry Zeus took vengeance and blasted the Titans with his thunderbolt and banished them to the underworld. After the battle mankind was created from the blood and ashes of the Titans. And because the Titans had consumed the baby Dionysos this meant that mankind has a dual nature, with both the elements of Dionysos and the Titans, of both good and evil. According to Orpheus’s teaching mankind must therefore seek atonement from the gods and choose the good over the evil.
The doctrine of Orpheus is a variation of Greek mythology as set forth by Hesiod, in his Theogony. Hesiod wrote of a primeval war between the Titans led by Kronos (Saturn) and the younger gods led by Zeus (Jupiter); and that this battle led to the supremacy of Zeus and human existence as it was known to the Greeks. [3]
Before the rise of Zeus the world existed in a golden age under the reign of Kronos (also known as the “Golden Age of Saturn”). There was an original human race in this age which Hesiod described as the “golden race”. Quoting Hesiod:
“First of all, the deathless gods who dwell on Olympus made a golden race of mortal men who lived in the time of Kronos when he was reigning in heaven. And they lived like gods without sorrow of heart, remote and free from toil and grief…” (Hesiod, Works and Days, 109)
This Golden Race lived an ideal existence similar to the biblical paradise (Gen. 1:25-30). But then this Golden Race, and the “Golden Age”, perished with the rise of Zeus and the banishing of the Titans (viz. the older generation of gods led by Kronos/Saturn). Hesiod passes over the details regarding the fate of the Golden Age but it obviously coincides with the banishing of Kronos and the rise of Zeus.
Under Zeus new human races were created which deteriorated in successive stages which Hesiod described as the races of Silver, Bronze and Iron [4]. According to Ovid, Zeus destroyed the race of Bronze with a great flood, with the only survivors being Deucalion and his family [5]. Following the Flood a new race emerged with Deucalion which became the Heroic race, which was distinguished by a temporary age of noble virtue. But this race soon faded and was followed by the Iron race, which Hesiod believed was the most corrupt race of all–his own [6].
In general the pagan Greeks and Romans did not have an exalted view of human origins. They attributed human origins to a Titan, a trickster god named Prometheus. In mythology Prometheus was not involved in the Titan war and he was condemned by Zeus for other reasons, such as giving fire and skills to humans contrary to Zeus’s will. Prometheus also played tricks on Zeus, all of which eventually provoked his wrath. The creator of mankind eventually ended up chained to a rock with an eagle eating his immortal liver once a day [7].
In Greco-Roman mythology it seems that the benefactors of mankind, Kronos and Prometheus, end up suffering at the hands of Zeus. The human race declines at the hands of Zeus. An ideal Golden Age ended because of Zeus. Could it be that Kronos/Saturn was actually justified in eating his own children? and that these “children” symbolize forces from which Kronos was trying to protect the cosmic order? — which Zeus overthrew as the result of his escape? (Note: These are rhetorical questions reflecting on the possible meaning of the myth and the paradox, viz. that a Golden Age of Humanity declines with the reign of Zeus.)
OVID VS. THE OLD TESTAMENT
Next we turn to the Bible and to some eerie parallels that are shared between the Bible and Greco-Roman mythology, especially in the first seven chapters of Genesis. It would be very easy for Gnostics who were versed in pagan mythology to also see the parallels in Genesis. These parallels are most obvious in the Antediluvian history in Genesis and that same Antediluvian history in Greek mythology, especially as summarized by Ovid, the ancient Roman mythographer (Ovid, Metamorphoses, book I).
Ovid has a parallel account which begins with a single supreme Deity–based on Plato’s unknown God–who creates the lesser gods who in turn create mankind (Prometheus). (Ovid, I:76f.)
At first the world exists under a “Golden Age” ruled by Saturn (I:89). This is the golden age where the human race lives a benevolent and ideal existence, just like the biblical paradise. But then Jupiter (=Zeus) drives Saturn from heaven and this race disappears and is replaced by another race (I:113). This new race is lawless and refuses to honor Jupiter (I:125f.; cf. Hesiod, Works. 121-139). The Earth also produces a race of giants which attack Mt. Olympus but Jupiter is able to destroy them (I:151f.). And finally, in the end, Jupiter sends a great flood to destroy all the humans who refuse to honor the gods. Righteous Deucalion and his family are the only humans that are saved and they repopulate the Earth (I:324).
The parallels between Ovid’s account and Genesis are remarkable. I’d like to point out that there are a couple of passages in Genesis that seem to reflect the transition from the Golden Age of Saturn to the reign of Jupiter/Zeus. Bible scholars have noted and documented that Genesis is actually a collection of at least two documents which have been identified as J & E. This is known as the “Documentary Hypothesis” which has identified four documents in the five books of Moses: J, E, P & D (i.e. Jahwist, Elohist, Priestly & Deuteronomist).
The two documents in Genesis include the creation passages in 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-4:26. These two documents actually contain two separate creation accounts with separate and distinct details. These conflicting passages were known to theologians in ancient times and they were the source of heresies among both Jewish and early Christian sects [8].
The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (25BC-45CE) is an example of an early writer who saw the work of two gods in Genesis, one being the creator of the spiritual archetype, and the other being the creator & governor of the material world. Hence, Genesis 1 is the perfect spiritual archetype, and Genesis 2 is the flawed material copy that is ruled over by a lesser god (also described as the “deuteros theos”) [9]. Philo also acknowledged two creations of man, in Genesis 1:27 and in 2:7. Philo’s explanation is that this was all based on the dualism of Plato, and–of course–Philo maintains that righteous Plato learned these doctrines originally from the teachings of Moses [10].
Philo’s interpretation represented his effort to harmonize what he perceived as two separate accounts in Genesis. This notion of two creations was not a new idea in the ancient world. Other philosophers and theologians saw these two accounts as a statement of conflict, and this became the origin of Gnostic theology and dualism. This theme is also present in certain New Testament passages which we will get into below (next section).
Getting back to Ovid and comparing the two Genesis accounts: Genesis 1 has an uncanny resemblance to the Golden Age of Saturn. The number Seven is connected with Saturn, and “God” is said to have created the cosmic order in six days and rested on the seventh day. God creates an ideal order where man is created “in the image of God…male and female” and everything is “good” (1:27, 31). We must also note that the “God” in Genesis 1 is not a singular creator figure. The notion of a singular figure is based on the later Greek translation, the “Septuagint” (LXX), where the word for “God” is singular: “Theos”. The Greek translation reflects the theological mandate of a later Jewish culture. The older Hebrew text literally reads “the gods” (“elohim”) and the context is undoubtedly plural and polytheistic. The gods said “let us create” and then the gods rested on the seventh day which denotes Saturn, who was also known as “El” among the ancient Hebrews and Canaanites. The word “Elohim” may signify the biblical equivalent of Saturn and the Titans.
Genesis 2, beginning in verse 4 has a remarkably different creation account: in which there is a singular creator figure who is called “Jehovah” or “Adonai” (“Lord of lords”) in the Hebrew text [11]. In this account everything is created in one day. And not everything that was created is “good”, some things are “not good”. Hence it is “not good” that Adam was created alone (2:18). There is also a “serpent” which is described as “the most cunning beast of the field”, which is not a good quality (3:1). And the Garden of Eden has a tree which includes the knowledge of “good and evil” and is not good for food (2:17, 3:3). None of these negative details are mentioned in Genesis 1 where everything is “good for food” (1:29-31). And whereas the gods of Genesis 1 rest from their works which are “good”, Jehovah is faced with rebellion from his creation and has no rest (cf. Gen. 6:6).
In these two accounts one might see the ideal order, the Golden Age of Genesis 1, replaced with the order in Genesis 2 and the tragedy that follows, including the giants and the flood. This coincides with Ovid and the general progression of Greek mythology which has the ideal Age of Saturn and the Titans, who are driven from heaven by Jupiter/ Zeus. A new human race evolves which is then destroyed by the flood because of their rebellion against Jupiter. Giants are also part of the story. Another interesting parallel is that Jupiter is also referred to as “Jove” which at the very least has a superficial resemblance to the name “YHWH” or “Jehovah”.
Of course there does not seem to be an explanation in Genesis of how the order of the Elohim was replaced by the order of Jehovah. Some theologians see a reference to a primeval conflict in Genesis 1:2, in the Hebrew words “tohu” and “bohu” which are said to mean that after the Earth was created it was made void or desolate, i.e. destroyed. Perhaps the context of the wording, primitive and terse as it is, could be a scribal reference to how the order in Genesis 1 became the order in Genesis 2. The rest on the seventh day is symbolic language meaning that the Elohim ceased to rule, and Jehovah takes power and replaced the original order, which was made void.
There are mainstream Christians who say that “tohu” and “bohu” refers to the primeval battle between God and Satan, and Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven. But we may consider this to be the myth of a later time and does not reflect the world of the people who wrote the texts that became Genesis and the ideological concerns of their day. I see evidence that Genesis is another version, very early, of the conflict between Saturn and Jupiter, or between the Titans and the Olympians, Kronos and Zeus.
I propose that the unstated narrative behind “tohu” and “bohu” would be the war as related in Geek mythology, between the Titans and the Olympians. Again, it is an uncanny coincidence that the number seven is associated with the Godhead in Genesis 1, which is the same number that pagans identified with Saturn. Genesis 2 has another god which takes charge with a new creation which is inferior to the first. And just like the Greek myth, this god is faced with rebellion and impiety from humans, and this god also faced an evil race of giants; which again, is followed by a flood (Gen. 6). I doubt that any of this is a coincidence.
THE DUAL CREATIONS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT: HOW GNOSTIC THEOLOGY REFLECTS THE CONFLICT BETWEEN SATURN AND JUPITER
The dual creation stories in Genesis are the key to understanding the origins of Gnostic theology and its dualism. More importantly, it is the key to understanding the same theological ideas that are found in the New Testament. For example, this is the key to understanding the meaning behind the enigmatic phrase in the Gospel of John, and in 1 John, that “No man has seen God at any time”. This is an emphatic statement. In the Gospel passage the statement is in reference to the Law of Moses, viz. that the “Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No man has seen God at any time” (Jn. 1:17-18, 1 Jn. 4:12). This was the proclamation of John the Baptist in announcing Jesus’s ministry. The message is that only Jesus has seen the Father; Moses never saw or knew the Father (Jn. 9:29, 17:25). And then St. Paul denied that Moses received the Law from God and that Moses represents the “god of this world” (2 Cor. 3:12-4:4; Gal. 3:19). All of this is based on the dichotomy between the two gods and two creations in the first two chapters of Genesis. Paul’s distinction between the “spiritual” and the “natural” man also reflects this dichotomy (Gen. 2:7, 1 Cor. 2:14), as does his description of Jesus as the “image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4, Gen. 1:27).
Of special note here is that even the Prologue in the opening verses of John actually refers to Genesis 1 and the “image of God”. The key to understanding the passage is that the word “image” (eidolon or idol: LXX) in Genesis 1:27 has been rendered as “Logos” in John. This was probably to avoid the awkwardness of calling the Son of God an “Image” or idol (the way Paul does). We can’t have our Gospel beginning with the phrase: “In the beginning was the Image…” That doesn’t work. Better to use the word “Logos” which has a much deeper meaning. And then in verse 3 we read regarding the Logos “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” This cryptic passage refers to the world that was made without the Logos which is the creation in Genesis 2 where mankind was created from the dust of the ground rather than created in the “image/ Logos of God”. John 1:3 is actually an allusion to the philosophical paradox between eternal existence and a material world that is ever becoming but never is. Paul laid claim to this same doctrine in 2 Corinthians 4:18.
The New Testament writers like Paul and “John” and others were not reading the Old Testament the way Jews and early orthodox Christians read the texts. And there is a similar situation with the early writers of the Books of Moses. The people who originally wrote and compiled those texts were completely different from the later Jewish culture that inherited and took control of these texts. And a comparison between Genesis and Ovid reveals that the original writers may have had a completely different message in view. Genesis may be another version of an ancient story of how Saturn was overthrown by Jupiter. The story of Moses represents an attempt by the Israelites to re-establish the Golden Age of Saturn but they end up under the control of Jehovah instead. The Liberty of Saturn was never achieved even while the ancient Israelites honored Saturn on the Seventh Day. And behind it all King David had revelation of a God that never demanded sacrifices and a spiritual law that was written within one’s heart (cf. Psalms 40:6, Lev. 7:37-38).
Psalms 40 is the root of Paul’s spirituality and his doctrine of Liberty. There is also evidence that Paul himself was making references to Saturn. Paul believed that an age of Liberty was approaching that was similar to the Golden Age of Saturn, and Paul’s ethics reflect the Saturnalia custom that was observed by the Greeks and Romans, where husbands and wives and slaves were all freed from their bonds and were treated equally in celebration (cf. Gal. 3:28).
Paul believed that this was an eternal age, which is also an attribute of Saturn. Saturn is the god of time and eternity; and was also known by the name “Aion”. Citing a philosopher from the time Quintus Lucius Balbus, the etymology of Saturn means the fullness of time [12]. We can compare Paul’s statement in Galatians 4:4 where he made an intriguing play on words: “But when the fullness of time was come (“pleroma tou xronos”), God sent forth his Son…” and the purpose was to bring a spiritual order that resembles what Paul’s gentile readers would have known as the Saturnalia or the Golden Age of Saturn. Hence, in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, there is neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28).
Paul seems to be making positive references to Saturn. Further evidence can be seen in 2 Corinthians 3:12-4:6 in which Paul describes two gods and two aions in conflict. Hence the Jews reject the gospel because they follow the Law of Moses and the “god of this aion”. Saturn is not the “god of this aion”. In Genesis 2:2 “God” rested after the Creation; whereas Jehovah confronts his creation without rest (Gen. 6:6). Jehovah is the “god of this aion” which corresponds to Jupiter who drove Saturn from heaven and keeps humanity in bondage under his reign. Jesus is the messenger who brings knowledge and comfort to humanity, which corresponds to Prometheus who also brought knowledge and comfort to humans. Prometheus actually represents Saturn and he was punished by Jupiter for giving knowledge and comfort to mankind. Jesus was crucified because of the Gospel and the comfort that he brought to mankind. Jesus can also be seen as representing Saturn against the “god of this aion”.
In later Gnostic doctrine the mythic figures of Greco-Roman mythology symbolize the key figures in Gnostic mythology: Saturn–the fullness of time–symbolizes the benevolent Pleroma. Juno, or Hera, the “Queen of Heaven”, symbolizes Sophia. And as Hera conceived Hephaistos without her husband Zeus, Sophia conceived without her mate Theletos and produced the Demiurge. Hephaistos was a crippled artisan which symbolizes the imperfect Demiurge. Zeus, aka Jupiter or “Jove”, symbolizes the cosmic authority of the Demiurge in opposition to the Pleroma (Saturn). (The Demiurge embodies the flawed attributes of both Zeus and Hephaistos.) Prometheus symbolizes the Savior Jesus. In context: pagan mythology is an imperfect reflection of the true spiritual order according to Gnostic doctrine. The Gnostics of ancient times claimed to know the true meaning just as they claimed to know the true meaning of scripture.
CONCLUSION: CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY AND THE REIGN OF JUPITER
Getting back to the original topic at the top of this essay: I believe all of these subtle issues were too much for the common folk in Roman times. And the same is true of the arcane pagan myths. All of these things are meant for the philosophers and mystics, which were an elite few who were willing to think and to find revelation on the deeper meaning of existence. Whereas the public prefers a God-King who has their illusory world under control. This is the legacy behind the popularity and success of Christian orthodoxy. Better to forget Saturn and let Jupiter have his glory and rebrand him as the Christian God. And just as Saturn serves in his place under the reign of Jupiter, Paul likewise serves in his place under the reign of Christian orthodoxy which has no regard for Paul’s original doctrine and message. –jw
Notes & Elucidations
1] The Babylonian Creation account is called the “Enuma Elish”. The text is available online.
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/enuma.html
Quoting from the Enuma Elish, Tablet 6, regarding the fate of Kingu and the creation of Mankind:
“Marduk summoned the great gods to Assembly. Presiding graciously, he issued instructions. This utterance the gods pay heed. The king addresses a word to the Anunnaki:
“If your former statement was true, do (now) the truth on oath by me declare! Who was it that contrived the uprising, and made Tiamat rebel, and joined battle? Let him be handed over who contrived the uprising. His guilt I will make him bear that you may dwell in peace!”
“The Igigi, the great gods, replied to him… “It was Kingu who contrived the uprising, and made Tiamat rebel, and joined battle.”
They bound him holding him before Ea. They imposed on him his guilt and severed his blood (vessels). Out of his blood they fashioned mankind. [Marduk] imposed the service and let free the gods.”
2] William Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion, pp. 82-83; Ivan Linforth, The Arts of Orpheus, pg. 307. Both of these books can be accessed and read online.
3] Viz. the Titan war. Hesiod, Theogony, 643-744.
4] Hesiod, Works and Days, 120ff. Ovid, Metamorphoses, 1:113-150. Note: The accounts of Hesiod and Ovid vary in details.
5] Ovid, Metamorphoses, 1:324.
6] Hesiod, Works and Days, 169c, 170. Quote: “And again far-seeing Zeus made yet another generation, the fifth, of men who are upon the bounteous earth. Thereafter, would that I were not among the men of the fifth generation, but either had died before or been born afterwards. For now truly is a race of iron..”
7] Hesiod, Theogony, 520-616.
8] R. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, pg. 59f. See also note #10.
9] Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis, 2:62.
10] D. Runia, Philo: On the Creation of the World According to Moses, pg. 137, N. Glatzer, The Essential Philo, pg. 335.
Philo is an example of an ancient Jewish writer who recognized two creation accounts in Genesis. Although, it is important to remember that Philo affirmed the unity of God and believed that the two creations were the result of two agents of the Deity, one of which created the spiritual archetype, and the material copy. The “second god” (“deuteros theos”) is the “Lord” who is really part of the second creation and governs the material world. In line with Plato, Philo believes that the material world is the work of a righteous God who wanted to bring the primeval material chaos into order. Quoting Philo on the dual creation accounts in Genesis:
“For God, because he is God, understood in advance that a beautiful copy would not come into existence apart from a beautiful model. … Therefore…he marked out the intelligible cosmos, so that he could use it as an incorporeal and most god-like paradigm and so produce the corporeal cosmos, a younger likeness of an older model…” (Philo, On the Creation of the World., 4:16)
Here is Philo’s explanation for the two creations of man in Genesis 1:27 & 2:7, as expressed in his treatise Questions and Answers on Genesis, 1:4,
Q: “What is the man who was created? (Gen. 2:7) And how is that man distinguished who was made after the image of God?” (Gen. 1:27)
A: “This man was created as perceptible to the sense…but he who in respect of his form is intellectual and incorporeal, is the similitude of the archetypal model as to appearance, he is the form of the principle character…the logos of God, the first beginning of all things, the original species or archetypal idea…”
And finally, in his effort to explain the duality of the Genesis accounts and to maintain the unity of God, Philo taught that the “living God” was manifest in the form of two agents:
“…the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power. And the creative power is God [Theos], for it is by this that he made and arranged the universe; and the royal power is the Lord [Kurios], for it is fitting that the Creator should lord it over and govern the creature.” (Philo, On Abraham, 121f., 124)
11] The word “Adonai” is actually plural but it is used in conjunction with a singular name and figure which is YHWH or Jehovah. In that context Adonai has the effective meaning of Lord of lords. And in that same context where the word “elohim” is used in reference to Jehovah it means God of gods. However, in Genesis 1 there is no singular figure by which the term “elohim” can be qualified. There is no “Jehovah” in Genesis 1, which is a separate narrative in every detail.
12] Quintus Lucius Balbus, quoted by Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II:25.64.
Note: The etymology of Quintus Balbus is worded in Latin. The name Saturn is derived from the Latin word “saturaretur” which is the Latin root of the English word “saturated”, meaning to be soaked or filled with a substance, viz. of time and ages.
By Jim West. Copyright © 2021. Dec. 30th. 1:30 AM PT. Revised 2-15-24.
All Rights Reserved.
Gnostic Sophistries... 
Leave a comment