Skip to main content

Multiple Melchizedeks in the Books of Jeu and Pistis Sophia


Multiple Melchizedeks in the Books of Jeu and Pistis Sophia


 Note: This article is provided here to make the information within publicly available. Should you require data for a footnote, then it was originally published as: Dalgaard, Kasper:
  “Multiple Melchizedeks in the Gnostic Pistis Sophia and Books
of Jeu,” in Torah Traditions and Ancient Readers in Early Judaism and Christianity, Henoch Journal 38 (Eds. J. Dunne & G. Allen), Morcellian, 54-66


The two 3rd-century Christian texts the Books of Jeu and the Pistis Sophia are both sterling examples of how later traditions reuse sacred texts and traditions in their compositional techniques. One example, but perhaps the most intriguing, is the manifold Melchizedek-traditions we find harmonized by the redactors of the texts. While these Melchizedek-figures ultimately derive from the Hebrew Bible (Gen 14:18-20; Ps 110:4), their functions in the Books of Jeu and the Pistis Sophia reflect how the redactors compiled numerous traditions together through their unique reading strategies.
In order to analyze the intertextual techniques at work within these two texts, we shall in the following identify and detail the existence of thirteen more-or-less distinct Melchizedek-traditions within the chapters of the Books of Jeu and the Pistis Sophia. The content of these traditions and the functions ascribed to Melchizedek are often divergent and self-contradictory, but always surprising, ranging as they do from a Melchizedek described as a supreme deity to Melchizedek appearing as a weapon wielded by Jesus. Their differences and quantity further reveals how frequently and freely the Melchizedek-figure was re-used and re-thought in antiquity. As we shall discuss in the latter part of this article, these findings serves to support several of Carl Schmidt’s early hypotheses concerning the compilatory nature of the texts and the individual dates for these. The findings also serve to dismiss the idea that the Books of Jeu and Pistis Sophia should be regarded as cohesive texts wherein we only find a single Melchizedek tradition as has been argued by Fred L. Horton, among others.[1]
To situate this discussion we shall first briefly travel through the literary life of Melchizedek from the figure’s first appearance in Genesis, up until the writing of the Books of Jeu and the Pistis Sophia. Then we’ll examine the key aspects of each tradition in these two texts and the combined effect of the redactors’ work will be used to situate the Melchizedek of the Books of Jeu and the Pistis Sophia within the Melchizedek-traditions of Second Temple Judaism and later times, to offer some remarks on the author’s interaction with the earlier traditions, their reading strategies, and their compositional techniques.


Melchizedek: A Prequel

The Melchizedek-figure presents a great example of how the ancient authors freely reused sacred texts and traditions in their composition. In the case of Melchizedek the figure continuously re-emerges over the centuries from its first known appearance in Gen 14:18–20 and Ps 110:4.[2] Through the royal and priestly functions, Melchizedek’s subordination to Abraham serves primarily to extol the patriarch, what we may term an Abraham-centric use of the figure. The inclusion of the priest-king of Salem in Genesis set the pattern to be followed by the majority of later texts by employing Melchizedek in a similar Abraham-centric context, whereas Psalm 110 uses the figure to extol an unnamed and unknown king. These two passages, however brief, were to become fertile exegetical ground from which numerous and varied traditions later grew. The first of these textual groups—the Greek Fragments on the Life of Abraham (found in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica 9.17) and Genesis Apocryphon 22:12-15—presents close rewritings of the Genesis Vorlage, and thus exhibit a continued Abraham-centric focus. In the first century c.e., further examples of this tradition include the writings of Philo (De Congressu Eruditionis Gratia. 98-99; Legum Allegoriae 3.79-82; De Abrahamo 235; and a small fragment from Quaestiones in Genesin, originally thought to belong to 4:4 by James R. Harris, but more probably belongs to14:18) and Josephus (Bellum Judaicum 6.438; Antiquitates Judaicum 1.180-181).[3] In these, Melchizedek is, through creative rewriting and allegorical interpretation, employed to demonstrate, among other things, the antiquity of Jerusalem, the importance of tithing, and the manner according to which a true king should rule.
However, a second group of texts marks a distinct tradition wherein Melchizedek’s role has changed significantly. The earliest examples of this tradition include the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400-407; 11Q17) and 11Q13, both found at Qumran.[4] These two texts appear to be connected by a comparative theology, angelology, and Melchizedekian exegeses. In both the Abraham-figure has disappeared entirely. Instead, the primary focus is now Melchizedek-centric, with Melchizedek cast as an angelic priest and champion of the sectarians. The writings in this second tradition are the first examples of exalted Melchizedeks, in which the figure, as the principal actor, has become exalted by the application of elements known from contemporary traditions that present angelomorphic human and individualised angel figures.
In the first century c.e., we also find texts that continue the exalted interpretations. In 2 Enoch 69-73, God directly created the Wunderkind Melchizedek to provide humanity with a heavenly priestly saviour figure.[5] 2 Enoch’s Melchizedek is, by all accounts, an exalted being, and the concluding chapters present a decidedly Melchizedek-centric text. A contemporary text, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and its use of Melchizedek presents an interpretation according to which the author of Hebrews was, to some extent, aware of exalted Melchizedek traditions (Heb. 5; 7). Yet despite the author’s awareness of such exegesis, the Melchizedek figure serves primarily to denigrate the Levitical priesthood and to extol the figure of Christ. This use is structurally related to the Abraham-centric texts, though the focus on Christ distinguishes Hebrews’ use of Melchizedek as Christ-centric—in which Melchizedek’s priesthood is interpreted as a model of Christ’s; while the author regarded Melchizedek as central to his exegesis, once the priesthood of Christ has been sufficiently established, the figure was discarded.
The majority of the writings of the early Church Fathers continued the Christ-centric use established by Hebrews, with the exception of Clement of Alexandria who states quite clearly that the Melchizedek of Genesis was Christ (Stromata 2.5). Other Church Fathers, including Justin Martyr (Dialogus 19; 21; 32-33; 63;82; 113; 118), Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autolycum 2.31), and Tertullian (Adversus Judaeos 2-3; Adversus Marcionem 5) employ the Melchizedek-figure to present a model of the Eucharist and as supportive evidence against the Jewish traditions of circumcision and observance of the Sabbath.[6]
However, on the outskirts of Christianity, several texts present evidence of continued traditions portraying exalted Melchizedeks. The communities responsible for these texts appear to have primarily belonged to the Gnostic sphere, although in the heresiologies (primarily Epiphanius’ Panarion (55; 67)), further evidence is presented of communities that apparently remained members of the Christian Church, despite their belief in an exalted Melchizedek. The first of these Gnostic texts, the Melchizedek Tractate found at Nag Hammadi (NHC IX), presents an extensive and convoluted Melchizedek-centric rewriting of the Melchizedekian material from both Genesis and Hebrews. However, rather than discarding the figure as the author of Hebrews had done, Melchizedek here becomes exalted in new ways, through a Melchizedekian exegesis focusing on the figure’s past, present, and future functions as a priestly saviour and champion of the righteous.

Melchizedek in Book of Jeu

Having entered the Gnostic sphere, we arrive at the Melchizedekian exegesis found in the Book of Jeu. Within the Bruce Codex, we find the two Coptic Books of Jeu, which date from the early third century and a similar Egyptian milieu as the Melchizedek Tractate and the later Pistis Sophia.[7] The Books of Jeu, in their present state, appear to consist of a collection of texts sharing a common theme, but their imperfect compilation has produced several repetitions and a number of inconsistencies.
The Melchizedek figure is only mentioned in the second of the two Books of Jeu, once as ZOROKO:ORA mEL (Zorokothora Mel) and twice as ZOROKO:ORA. The nature, function, and meaning of the magical name Zorokothora is not explained in the texts. However the identification between Melchizedek and Zorokothora Mel is strengthened by how this title appears in connection with the full name in parallel passages in Pistis Sophia.
Melchizedek’s first appearance, and thus our tradition number 1, occurs in chs. 45–46. Here Jesus is instructing his disciples in the mysteries of the Treasury of Light, or the Pleroma. Among the mysteries are teachings concerning the three baptisms: that of water (45), that of fire (46), and that of the Holy Spirit (47). In ch. 45, Jesus prepares to perform the baptism of water by praying to the Father, asking him to summon the fifteen helpers who serve the seven virgins of the light. Jesus then proceeds with an invocation to Zorokothora: And may Zorokothora come forth and bring forth the water of the baptism of life in one of these pitchers of wine. This water is transformed into wine, allowing Jesus to baptize his disciples, an experience which makes the disciples rejoice with a very great joy, as they realize that their sins have now been forgiven.
The second tradition is found in ch. 46. Here Jesus continues with the second baptism, that of fire. The disciples – apparently sinful again – undergo numerous preparations, including being clad in white linen and crowned with the verbena plant. Jesus then causes the cipher of the seven voices, which is 9879, to be placed in their two hands. Jesus invokes the four corners of the world, praying to his father to purify them all and cause Zorokothora Mel to come in secret and bring the water of the baptism of fire of the Virgin of the Light, the judge. This is repeated a few verses later, with minor variations, as do thou cause Zorokothora to come and bring the water of the baptism of fire of the Virgin of the Light, that I may baptize my disciples in it. The text then changes, with the active servant of Jesus becoming the Virgin of the Light instead of Melchizedek, a change in focus whereby there are no further references to Melchizedek in the Books of Jeu.

Melchizedek in Pistis Sophia

In the Askew Codex, we find the four books of Pistis Sophia.[8] These detail the postresurrection teachings of Jesus to his disciples during the eleven years that, according to the text, he spent with them. The present text, much like the Books of Jeu, portrays, as we shall see, enough inconsistencies between its various parts to be described as a composition of individual texts compiled because of their common theme. Based on the content and order of the inconsistencies, Carl Schmidt has suggested that the fourth book of Pistis Sophia constitutes the oldest part of the work, with a plausible date of ca. the first half of the third century; books 1–3 are then younger, and may date from the end of the third century.[9] According to Schmidt’s dating of the text, the earliest of the Melchizedek sections is 4.136–140, wherein Melchizedek is referred to once as ZOROKO:ORA (in 4.136), and four times to as ZOROKO:ORA mEL,ICEDEK (three times in 4.139 and once in 4.140).
In 4.136, which constitute our third Melchizedekian tradition, the name appears in a prayer that Jesus offers to his father: Hear me, my Father, thou father of all fatherhoods, thou infinite Light. In this prayer Jesus lists a number of heavenly beings, having important offices in regard to the Light of the Father.[10] Among this list is the first mention of ZOROKO:ORA in Pistis Sophia, the meaning of which is unfortunately not among those names explained by Jesus, but as in the Books of Jeu, we may note that this name appears in a prayer offered by Jesus to his father.
The fourth, fifth, and sixth traditions describe, with several minor variations, how the souls are brought down from heaven by the archons. The first of these traditions occurs as Jesus informs his disciples how the souls of men are stolen by a multitude of demons who serve the archon Paraplex (4.139). Jesus explains that Jeu is the provider of all the archons and the gods and the powers which have come into existence in the matter of the light of the Treasury, and Zorokothora Melchizedek is the messenger of all the lights, which are purified in the archons, as he takes them into the Treasury of the Light, then these two alone are the great lights. This psychopompous journey, in which Melchizedek leads the lights or souls into safety allows the souls to be freed from oppression and affliction. This apparently happens in a cyclical pattern, whenever the time is right (at the time of the cipher).[11] At this time, Melchizedek guides the souls to the gate of those of the Midst, and takes them to the Treasury of the Light.
In the fifth tradition, Jesus informs his disciples that, with time, Jeu withdraws. The archons seize this moment to rebel, assisted by Melchizedek having become occupied with the well-being of the souls. The archons steal the souls and bring them to Paraplex, who proceeds to punish them for 133 years and 9 months, until the pattern repeats itself and the souls are liberated and guided to safety by Melchizedek. The sixth tradition occurs in ch. 140, where a similar cycle is described for the souls who have fallen under the second-ranking archon, called Ariuth, the Ethiopian Woman, and for those under the third-ranking archon, Hekate, the Three-faced. These are parallel traditions, but with variations in the pattern—for example, in Hekate’s palace, the souls are punished for 105 years and 6 months. A more important variation is that Zorokothora Melchizedek in ch. 140 assumes the functions that Jeu had in the preceding chapter. Melchizedek is now said to destroy Hekate’s places simply by looking forth from the height. Following his accomplishments against Paraplex and Hekate, Melchizedek is not mentioned again in book four, as the text turns to describing related traditions wherein the archon Typhon is defeated by Zarazaz, and Jachthanabas by Jao.
In the younger passages of Pistis Sophia, books 1–3, the name Melchizedek (mEL<ICEDEK) appears a total of 14 times (three times in 1.25; twice in 1.26, 2.86, 3.112, 128, and 131; and once in 3.129). As we have no indication as to the chronology of these later traditions we shall examine them in the order the author of the Pistis Sophia has ordered them. This makes the seventh tradition the passage in 1.25–26 wherein Melchizedek again defeats several archons. This allows him to purify and transport the liberated souls to safety in the Treasury of the Light. This transpires when the time came of the number of Melchizedek, which marks the resurfacing of the cyclical pattern also found in 4.139, although described in different terms. At this time, the great Paralemptor of Light, as Melchizedek is now called, liberates the light from the archons and from the unidentified beings called those of the sphere. After purifying the souls, Melchizedek brings them to the Treasury of Light. During the purification process, matter is left behind, which is gathered and used by the archons to produce new souls of men. This creation is observed by the paralemptors of the sun and the moon. They remove the new souls, the lightpower of the archons, from the archons, and return this to Melchizedek. After this, the process is repeated as the archons creates yet new souls from the material dregs, and casts them out into the world of mankindforcing Melchizedek to once again gather the souls.
This cyclical pattern is broken in tradition number eight: in 1.27, the archons, rather than releasing the souls, swallow them. This time, instead of Melchizedek saving the souls, the archons are defeated by Jesus and his Great Light. This weapon’s title is the same as the one given to Melchizedek in other traditions, and it would appear that in this tradition Melchizedek has been reduced to a weapon used by Jesus to defeat the archons. With the removal of Melchizedek as an active figure, Jesus has assumed the functions elsewhere attributed to Melchizedek, Indeed, the actions of Jesus in defeating the archons and liberating the souls, are essentially parallel to those of Melchizedek in the previous chapters (25–26). Tradition number eight thus presents an example wherein the figure of Melchizedek has been removed, or reduced to a weapon, discernible only by the name given to the force employed against the archons by Jesus.
In 2.86, and our ninth tradition, Melchizedek again re-appears as the active figure of Pistis Sophia’s ongoing battle between the forces of the Father and the archons. In this passage, which details the origin of Melchizedek, he is termed the great paralemptor of the Light. Jesus informs his disciples that Jeu came forth first from the pure light of the first tree, while the watcher of the veil of those of the right came from the second, the two leaders from the third and fourth trees, and Melchizedek from the fifth tree. These five beings (including Sabaoth, though he is also said to have emanated from Jeu directly) were, at the command of the First Mystery. They were, by the last helper, put in the place of those of the right for the organization of the gathering together of the light of the height, from the aeons of the archons and from the world and all the races in them.
The tenth tradition consists of several variations to this hierarchy. Here it is said that six beings were tasked with collecting the souls wherever they might be. They were to serve as fellow-rulers with the first [saviour] of the first voice of the Treasury of the Light. It is difficult to discern the precise rank of Melchizedek within this Gnostic hierarchy—one that is repeated several times with slight variations, and which also includes the three amens, the twelve saviours, and numerous watchers—but Melchizedek’s close associations with both Jeu and Sabaoth, appears to position him above the other heavenly beings, below Jeu, the watcher, and the two leaders.
In 3.112, we find the eleventh tradition as Jesus describes the passage of the soul. He informs his disciples that after the Virgin of the Light and her seven virgins have inspected and sealed the soul, it proceeds to pass through the hands of the Great Sabaoth, who likewise seals the soul. Finally, Melchizedek, the great paralemptes of the light, who is in the place of those of the right, seals the soul. Then the so-called paralemptores of Melchizedek seal the souls and bring them to the Treasury of Light. In a long procession, the souls pass several powerful beings who scrutinize each one before allowing it to proceed. In this process, Melchizedek and his servants perform the final inspection at the last stage before the soul is allowed to enter the Pleroma.
In 3.128–129, an inverted order sequence of the souls’ journey is described, constituting our twelfth tradition. This time, Melchizedek’s helpers (here called his paralemptes) are said to speedily snatch [the soul] up, whether the dragon has released it, or whether it is in the judgments of the archons. Having saved the soul from its punishment, Melchizedek’s servants then bring the soul to Virgin of the Light who seals it, and her servants place it in the Pleroma. In this tradition, Melchizedek’s only involvement is thus through his servants, while the Virgin of the Light has assumed his station on the journey of the souls.
The thirteenth and final Melchizedekian tradition in the Pistis Sophia occurs in 3.131. Here Jesus once again describes what transpires when souls descend from the Pleroma; the five archons of the great Heimarmene give the soul a cup of forgetfulness. Drinking this causes the soul to forget all the places it has previously visited. The cup transforms into the body that surrounds the soul as a spirit counterpart. Should the soul be new, it either comes from the sweat, tears, or breath of the archons, in which case the archons knead it together, or else, if it is dregs of what is purified of the light, it is forcefully taken from the archons by Melchizedek. In this convoluted and difficult passage, Jesus discloses to his disciples that new souls are made of the fluids of the archons, by the archons, if the soul is far (or destined to be far) from reaching the Treasury of the Light. Should the soul be close to (or destined to be) the light, it is pulled from the archons by Melchizedek.

Making sense of the Multiple Melchizedeks

The preceding review of the thirteen traditions containing references to the Melchizedek figure reveal how the Melchizedekian material of both the Books of Jeu and Pistis Sophia in several instances overlaps and corresponds, but also emphasizes how the more-or-less distinct traditions also exhibit numerous inconsistencies and self-contradictory material. The two traditions in the Books of Jeu contain related exalted Melchizedeks that in both cases are presented as a natural part of a Gnostic hierarchy. With no introduction, Melchizedek is twice summoned by Jesus to assist in the baptism of the disciples. In the first instance, Melchizedek brings the Water of the Baptism of Life, and in the second, the Water of the Baptism of Fire of the Virgin of Light. The last passage is associated with the Virgin of Light, a connection that we also encounter in Pistis Sophia, and which leads to a focus on the Virgins actions in the third baptism ritual. The minor differences between the wording, the assisting beings, and the variations to the ritual in ch. 45, serve to indicate the existence of more than one Gnostic Melchizedek-tradition combined in the Books of Jeu.
While the Books of Jeu presents Melchizedek as an exalted figure, the text has preserved little material from any previous tradition, apart from the figure’s name and a mention of wine and bread. As in the Melchizedek Tractate, Melchizedek appears closely connected with initiation-baptisms through which the chosen are saved from their sins. However, in the Books of Jeu’s presentation of Melchizedek he is not cast as the protagonist, but instead functions as a heavenly being sent by the Father to assist Jesus. There are no indications of an amalgamation of Jesus and Melchizedek, as in the Melchizedek Tractate. While the functions of Melchizedek as an exalted psychopomp, closely connected to the Pleroma and the purifying and liberating of souls, resembles the figure’s description in the Melchizedek-centric texts of 11Q13 and the Melchizedek Tractate, the Books of Jeu’s usage is perhaps more akin to the Christ-centric use found in Hebrews.
Similarly, the four books of Pistis Sophia present numerous references to an exalted Melchizedek, inserted in a Gnostic hierarchy without any introduction. Throughout the text, Melchizedek’s primary function is to secure the souls of men from the clutches of the archons and to guide their ascent to the Treasury of Light, or Pleroma. However, Pistis Sophia also presents evidence of being a compilation of several Melchizedek traditions. While all of the individual traditions cast the figure as an exalted heavenly being, they show some variations in the functions, title, and hierarchic rank accorded Melchizedek.
These three traditions all use the title Zorokothora (4.136), with the abbreviated form of Mel inserted in 4.139 and 140, serving as a bridge between these traditions and those found in the older Books of Jeu. In the first of these passages, tradition three, the title refers to an important being ranked high among those beings associated in various ways with the Father’s light (136). The following, more detailed tradition appears in three variants, all of which have Zorokothora Melchizedek responsible for liberating the souls and conveying them to safety. In the fourth and fifth tradition (139), Melchizedek assists Jeu in defeating and liberating the souls from Paraplex. In the sixth tradition (140), we find a Melchizedek who is the only active saviour of the souls. He combats Hekate, destroys her palace, and sets free the souls. Apart from minor discrepancies (such as the time the souls spend in captivity), the variants in 4.139–140 present a comparable figure of cyclic activities that ensure the liberation of the souls from the archons. Yet while in the first variant, Melchizedek is a power comparable to Jeu (the two are described as the only Great Lights), in the second there is no mention of Jeu, and Melchizedek has absorbed that power’s functions. The functions ascribed to Melchizedek in the fourth book and the connection between the titles used to describe the figure in these passages and those in the Pistis Sophia appear to support Schmidt’s dating of the individual parts of the Book of Jeu.
In the younger traditions of books 1–3, Melchizedek’s actions involves fighting the archons, liberating, purifying, and transporting the souls to the Pleroma. However, we find evidence of several variations upon the Melchizedek material. In the seventh tradition (1.25–26), Melchizedek is again the primary saviour of the souls in a cyclic pattern. Apart from the change in title from Zorokothora to the great paralemptor of Light, the content of this variant is related to traditions four, five, and six, although we here for the first time encounter servants of Melchizedek. These, described as the paralemptors of the sun and the moon are in other traditions described as the servants of Melchizedek, perhaps marking tradition the seventh tradition as earlier than these – at least according to the concept of Lectio Difficilior. In the seventh tradition, these servants are the primary actors; they observe the archons producing new souls, and it is now these paralemptors who combat the archons, while Melchizedek is responsible only for the souls return to safety. These events are followed by a different tradition, our number eight, in which it is now Jesus, rather than Melchizedek, who defeats the archons (27). This distinct break in the cyclic pattern of the previous traditions signifies that we are now dealing with a different tradition, in which Jesus fulfils the functions previously carried out by Melchizedek, who appears to have been rewritten into a weapon carrying the title given to Melchizedek in other traditions. It appears conceivable that the traditions in which Melchizedek’s servants have assumed his functions (with the paralemptors in 1.128–129 later explained as the servants of Melchizedek, rather than of the sun and moon (1.26)) and the tradition in which Jesus has similarly absorbed Melchizedek’s role, would constitute the youngest variants.
In the ninth and tenth tradition, as in the third tradition, we find various descriptions of Melchizedek’s place within Gnostic hierarchies. Although Melchizedek ranks high in all, the many variations within these traditions presents a case of these being compilations of different hierarchies.
In book 3, we find the last three traditions. The first of these has Melchizedek taking part in the purification process before the souls are allowed to enter the Pleroma: in 3.112, Melchizedek, assisted by his paralemptors, is the final stage in the purification process, and it is Melchizedek who seals the souls before they enter the Pleroma. In 3.128–129, it is Melchizedek’s paralemptors who affect the liberation of the souls from the so-called Dragon, presumably an archon, and the Virgin of Light now replaces Melchizedek as the final stage. The final tradition appears in 3.131, in which the archons are again the creators of the souls, and Melchizedek is once more the one who liberates the souls. However, in this tradition, Melchizedek does not defeat the archons as before, but simply removes the souls from the archons with little evidence of any combat.
Pistis Sophia, in its apparent compilation of numerous sources, thus appears to have preserved several variants of exalted Melchizedek traditions. Three traditions (three, nine, and ten) situate Melchizedek within Gnostic hierarchies. In the rest, Melchizedek functions as the liberator of souls and their guide to the Pleroma. Three of these traditions (eleven, twelve, and thirteen) are primarily concerned with Melchizedek’s psychopompic functions, and the remaining traditions focus on Melchizedek’s combat with the archons as a means of liberating souls.
While in each tradition Melchizedek has an important role, his importance varies. He is the most important being in traditions four and six, but elsewhere only a minor participant in the process (twelve). In two cases, the paralemptors or paralemptes (in seven of the sun and moon, and in twelve of Melchizedek) have become the primary actors, and, in tradition eight, all Melchizedek’s functions have been absorbed by Jesus, rather like how Melchizedek absorbs the functions of Jeu in 4.140. The highest importance ascribed to Melchizedek is in book four, where he has a status comparable to Jeu (five) or higher (six); in tradition nine, however, he is ranked below Jeu, while in eleven and twelve he appears to be lower in the hierarchy. The importance ascribed to Melchizedek in these traditions also varies significantly: in eleven, he is ranked above the Virgin of Light, while in twelve the Virgin is ranked above him. At the same time, the mysterious servants of Melchizedek also appear to vary in importance. While not mentioned in most traditions, the paralemptors are in tradition seven responsible for defeating the archons, while in tradition twelve; the paralemptes of Melchizedek have assumed the responsibilities of purification.
In addition to the varying descriptions of Melchizedek, there is further evidence to support that Pistis Sophia preserves several independent Melchizedek traditions. Apart from the differences in terminology and the description of the archons, the souls, and the purification process, we can see that in book four, Melchizedek is entitled Zorokothora and the Great Light, whereas in the other books he is called, with some variation, the (great) Paralemptor of (the) Light.[12]
The plethora of similar, yet different, traditions in the Books of Jeu and Pistis Sophia thus reveals the continued religious interest in an exalted Melchizedek, in which all traces of the Melchizedek of Hebrew Scripture have been removed, and he has become a completely exalted heavenly power. The traditions in Pistis Sophia are loosely connected to those of the Books of Jeu, with the principle similarities being the appearance of the name Zorokothora in the prayers offered by Jesus to his father, the association with the Virgin of the Light and her servants, and Melchizedek’s general function as a liberator of the souls. Yet, although the Melchizedek Tractate, the Books of Jeu, and Pistis Sophia, all appear to derive from an Egyptian Gnostic environment, the Melchizedek figures they present seldom overlap, and are often alike in name only – even within the same text. This suggests that, during the centuries in which these texts were written, there was a significant amount of exegesis performed casting Melchizedek as the central actor. The evidence of multiple Gnostic Melchizedeks appear to vindicate the claims found in the heresiologies of the Church Fathers (e.g. Hippolytus in his Panarion) of numerous communities worshipping exalted Melchizedeks. Combined with the Melchizedek Tractate and the multiple traditions in the Books of Jeu and Pistis Sophia, the heresiologies of these authors emphasize the manifold traditions of exalted Melchizedeks in circulation. The Books of Jeu, and Pistis Sophia thereby present additional evidence of a multitude of Melchizedek-centric writings still to be discovered; writings which may further surprise modern readers as to how creative the ancient writers were.
As we have seen, the Books of Jeu and Pistis Sophia present several references to an exalted Melchizedek, fully inserted in Gnostic cosmologies. However, the Melchizedek traditions also provide additional support for Schmidt’s hypothesis that both texts are compilations.[13] While all of the individual traditions present the figure as an exalted heavenly being, they show sufficient variations in Melchizedek’s enemies and servants, his origin, title, rank and functions to mark them as distinct traditions stemming from a surprisingly fertile garden of Melchizedek-traditions. Those responsible for harvesting this garden for use in the Books of Jeu and Pistis Sophia were thus compilers rather than authors. The thirteen more-or-less distinct traditions each contain unique elements compiled into one text, and in both cases the ones responsible share compositional techniques which mark them as rather careless compilers, by modern day standards. Both texts present a seemingly random compilation of any and all traditions concerning elements, in our case Melchizedek, which the compilers could find or had knowledge about. The texts may have been created following less harsh standards or may be part of the trend of compiling material, similarly to the attempts at harmonizing the Gospels (e.g. Tatian in his Diatessaron), although the Books of Jeu and Pistis Sophia were compiled with much less attention paid to the harmonizing part. Both texts also serve to remind the modern day reader of the remarkable degree of freedom with which the Vorlage was treated in these centrifugal rewritings.[14] Apparently the ancient authors were entirely unafraid of extensively re-inventing and freely transforming Scripture in their interaction with, and reuse of, the Melchizedek from Genesis, an approach to the sacred texts shared by Melchizedek-centric texts from the Qumran period to later Gnostic times.
Finally, it should be noted that although these texts reveal that the idea of an exalted Melchizedek continued to be useful for the ancient author’s theological arguments, both the Books of Jeu and Pistis Sophia have departed from the focus on the priesthood of Melchizedek which was at the centre of the exegesis found in the earlier Melchizedek-centric texts. But whether this is caused by his priestly functions having been absorbed by his psychopompic functions or because the communities from which these texts originates ascribed little importance to priests and priesthoods will necessitate further study of the multiple Melchizedeks of the Books of Jeu and Pistis Sophia.

Bibliography

Alexander, Phillip S. The Mystical Texts. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Related Manuscripts. Library of Second Temple Studies 61, edited by Lester L. Grabbe. London: T&T Clark International, 2006.
———. “Retelling the Old Testament”, in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, edited by Donald A. Carson and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1988: 99–121.
Charles, Robert H. “2 Enoch, or The Book of the Secrets of Enoch”, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Volume II: Pseudepigrapha, edited by Robert H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913: 425–430.
Dalgaard, Kasper. A Priest for All Generations: An Investigation into the Use of the Melchizedek Figure from Genesis to the Cave of Treasures. Publikationer fra Det Teologiske Fakultet 48. Copenhagen: Københavns Universitet: 2013.
Davila, James R. Liturgical Works. Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls 6. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000.
———. “Melchizedek, the ‘Youth’ and Jesus”, in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity. Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001. STDJ 46, edited by James R. Davila. Leiden: Brill, 2001: 248–274.
Delcor, Mathias. “Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 2 (1971): 115–135.
Gianotto, Claudio. Melchisedek e la sua tipologia: Tradizioni giudaiche, cristiane e gnostiche (sec. II a.C.-sec III d.C.). Supplementi alla Rivista biblica 12. Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1984.
Gieschen, Charles A. “Enoch and Melchizedek: The Concern for Supra-Human Priestly Mediators in 2 Enoch”, in New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only. Studia Judaeoslavica 4, edited by Andrei A. Orlov, Gabriele Boccaccini, and Jason Zurawski. Leiden: Brill, 2012: 369–385.
Granerød, Gard. Abraham and Melchizedek: scribal activity of Second Temple times in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 406; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010.
Horton, Fred L. The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Society for the New Testament Studies Monograph Series 30. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
MacDermot, Violet. Pistis Sophia. Nag Hammadi Studies 9, edited by Carl Schmidt. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
Milik, Józef T. “‘Milkî-sedek et Milkî-resa’ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens”, in Journal of Jewish Studies 23 (1972): 95–144.
Newsom, Carol A. “Shirot ’Olat Hashabbat”, in Qumran Cave 4: VI. Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 1. Discoveries in the Judean Desert XI, edited by Emanuel Tov. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998: 173–402.
Orlov, Andrei A. The Enoch-Metatron Tradition. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 107, edited by Martin Hengel and Peter Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Schmidt, Carl. Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex Brucianus. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 8:1–2. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1892.
———. Koptisch-gnostische Schriften, Erster Band: Die Pistis Sophia, Die beiden bücher des Jeû, Unbekanntes altgnostiches Werk. Berlin: J.C. Hinrichs, 1905.
———. Pistis Sophia. Coptica: Consilio et Impensis Instituti Rask-Oerstediani. Hauniae: Gyldendalske Boghandel-Nordisk Forlag, 1925.







[1]  Fred L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 30; Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1976, 140.
[2] For a more in depth discussion of the Melchizedek figure within Genesis and Psalm 110, see Gard Granerød, Abraham and Melchizedek: scribal activity of Second Temple times in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 406; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. A more thorough study of the Melchizedek figure in general can be found in Horton, Melchizedek; Claudio Gianotto, Melchisedek e la sua tipologia: Tradizioni giudaiche, cristiane e gnostiche (sec. II a.C.–sec III d.C.) Supplementi alla Rivista biblica 12; Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1984; and Kasper Dalgaard, A Priest for All Generations: An Investigation into the Use of the Melchizedek Figure from Genesis to the Cave of Treasures. Publikationer fra Det Teologiske Fakultet 48; Copenhagen, Københavns Universitet: 2013.
[3] Cf. James R. Harris, Fragments of Philo Judaeus. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1886. A detailed study of the Melchizedekian passages of these texts and a translation of the Quaestiones in Genesin fragment can be found in Dalgaard, A Priest, 32-46; 79-93; 126-134.
[4] While Melchizedek's function in 11Q13 is clear from the text (cf. ibid., 62-69; Józef T. Milik, “‘Milkî-sedek et Milkî-resa’ dans les anciens écrits juifs et chrétiens”, Journal of Jewish Studies 23 (1972)), the question of whether the figure appears in the Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice is more difficult. While the name has not survived in totality, parts of it are found in at least three passages (4Q401 11 l.3; 4Q401 22 l.3; 11Q17 ii 3 l.7) and with Psalm 110 functioning as the backbone of the entire text we will in the following assume that the Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice had Melchizedek as its main priestly character. For more on the likelihood of Melchizedek starring in the Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice, see Carol A. Newsom, “Shirot ‘Olat ha-Shabbat”, in Qumran Cave 4: VI. Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part I (DJD XI; ed. Emanuel Tov; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998); James R. Davila, Liturgical Works. Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls 6; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000; Philip S. Alexander, The Mystical Texts: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Related Manuscripts Library of Second Temple Studies 61; ed. Lester L. Grabbe, London: T&T Clark, 2006; Dalgaard, A Priest, 47-56.
[5] A more detailed study of the Melchizedek chapters of 2 Enoch can be found in Charles A. Gieschen, “Enoch and Melchizedek: The Concern for Supra-Human Priestly Mediators in 2 Enoch”, in New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only. Studia Judaeoslavica 4; ed. Andrei A. Orlov, Gabriele Boccaccini, and Jason Zurawski; Leiden: Brill, 2012; Dalgaard, A Priest, 94-110. The question on when 2 Enoch should be dated is another of the great mysteries of Melchizedekian studies; in the following we shall follow the early first century c.e. date suggested by Robert H. Charles, “2 Enoch, or The Book of the Secrets of Enoch”, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. Volume II: Pseudepigrapha, ed. Robert H. Charles, trans. Nevill Forbes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 425-430, Mathias Delcor, “Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews”, in  Journal for Jewish Studies 2 (1971), 115-135; Andrei A. Orlov, The Enoch-Metatron Tradition. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 107, ed. Martin Hengel and Peter Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, 333; Gieschen, “Enoch”, 366. However it should be mentioned that this date is still subject to debate and some scholars remain cautious, e.g. James R. Davila, “Melchizedek, the ‘Youth’ and Jesus”, in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 46; ed. James R. Davila; Leiden: Brill, 2001.
[6] For more on the Church Fathers' use of the Melchizedek figure, see Horton, Melchizedek, 87-113; Dalgaard, A Priest, 136-149; 154-156; 195-207.
[7] The title is based on two references in the later Pistis Sophia concerning the so-called Books of Jeu (ch. 2.99; 3.134). It was given the text by Carl Schmidt, who in 1892 published a translation and commentary on the text (Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex Brucianus [TU 8; Leipzig, 1892], revised in Carl Schmidt, Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften, erster Band: Die Pistis Sophia, die Beiden Bücher des Jeû, unbekanntes altgnostiches Werk [Berlin: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905]). At the end of 1 Book of Jeu (following ch. 41), a title states that this is The Book of the Great Logos Corresponding to Mysteries. This may present a more original and descriptive title by which to refer to the two books. For the possible origin of the text, see ibid., xxxii and Violet MacDermot, Pistis Sophia (NHS 9; ed. Carl Schmidt; Leiden: Brill, 1978), from which the following translations derive.
[8] For an introduction to the text and its history, see Carl Schmidt, Pistis Sophia (Coptica: Consilio et impensis instituti Rask-Oerstediani; Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel-Nordisk Forlag, 1925), ix–xci, and MacDermot, Pistis Sophia, xi–xviii. Coptic text and translation from ibid.
[9] C.f. Schmidt, Schriften, xxxii; cf. MacDermot, Pistis Sophia, xiv.
[10] Schmidt, Schriften, 373n.2, suggests that all the names in this list refer to the First Mystery, though this seems less plausible than the above interpretation. At least Zorokothora, Jeu, and Sabaoth are mentioned as beings who had important functions in regards to the Light of the Father; cf. Horton, Melchizedek, 144–145.
[11] This indication of time, somewhat similar to a mention of the cipher placed in the disciples' hands before Melchizedek appears in the Books of Jeu ch. 46, may be an astrological term, as suggested by Gianotto, Melchisedek, 225.
[12] The inconsistencies in the name, function, and rank of Melchizedek correspond well to the anomalies regarding the titles and functions ascribed to Jesus, as identified by MacDermot, Pistis Sophia, xiv, and also apparent from the varying names used to describe Mary in Pistis Sophia.
[13] Schmidt, Schriften, xxxii.
[14] Centrifugal being a term coined by Philip Alexander (“Retelling the Old Testament”, in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, edited by Donald A. Carson and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1988: 99–121) describing texts rewriting the Vorlage in a non-sequential manner (as opposed to centripetal texts).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Petersakterne: Dæmonologi for begyndere

Note: This paper is provided here to make the information within publicly available. It was given as an introduction to the following article: Dalgaard, Kasper: " Duel på magi og mirakler i antikkens R om ” in Bibliana 2012:2, Bibelselskabet, København Dæmonologi for begyndere - dæmoner og mirakler i Petersakterne og Salomons Testamente I forbindelse med et arrangement i sidste uge fortalte en vis professor mig at min hjerne "fungerer sjovt." Forhåbentligt var det sagt med et glimt i øjet, men det er nok noget om udsagnet hvilket samtidigt er årsagen til at sjove eller skæve tekster tiltrækker mig. I denne omgang har jeg haft mulighed for at beskæftige mig med ikke blot én men to tekster der mildt sagt indeholder mange skæve indslag. Disse er Petersakterne og Salomons Testamente. Petersakterne kan I læse meget mere om i det nye nummer af Bibliana hvor min artikel netop handler om dette skrifts meget udtalte kritik af magi – altså brug af en mag

Peter and Simon in the Acts of Peter: A Supernatural Fight between Magic and Miracles

Note: This paper is provided here to make the information within publicly available. Should you require data for a footnote, then it was originally given at EABS, Thessaloniki 2011 by Kasper Dalgaard. A full article on the subject has appeared in   Studies on Magic and Divination in the Biblical World , Biblical Intersections 11 (Ed. H. R. Jacobus, A. K, de Hemmer Gudme & P. Guillaume). Gorgias Press, Piscataway, N.J., 169-181 Peter and Simon in the Acts of Peter: A Supernatural Fight between Magic and Miracles   Introduction Including magic and the supernatural seems an almost sure way of writing a blockbuster – the best examples include the Harry Potter and Twilight series. Yet the second century text Acts of Peter remains almost unknown and as far from a blockbuster as possible – even though it treats the reader to a furious and fantastic supernatural combat between the champions of God and Satan – a campaign of battles that would baffle most dedicated