The allegories are complex and they are often discribed metaphorically as "spider webs" (or weaving) because strands lead off in many directions and
then often return to provide a different version of the same event or idea. This means that most allegoric interpretations must include material from
a variety of sources in order to gain a broader picture of what the "web" truly is portraying.
The four "elements" of "water", "fire", "earth", and "air" which the ancients claimed that were the basis of all things are actually the
elements of allegoric writings. Water represents "writings" and this is most clearly shown in the Babylonian god Nebo who was the god of both water
and writings. Water can be either "bitter" or "sweet". Proverbs 9:17 informs us that it is "stolen water" that is "sweet" and therefore
sweet water represents writings taken from others. (One Hebrew word for "sweet" is "mathaq" which is suggestive of the "tax collector" known as
"Matthew".) "Bitter waters" (H. mar or marah) are the waters of interpretation. This identification of writings as water then provides
significant clues as to the nature of Moses, Noah and John the Baptist.
While water represents physical writings, the process of allegoric interpretation itself is known as "fire". Allegoric interpretations can be
either "good" or "evil" with "good" interpretations often taking the form of myths and legends, while "evil" interpretations are more clearly
recognized as interpretations. Most evil interpretations that have been preserved only scratch the surface and do little to expose the true nature of
allegory and this type of interpretation is known as "walking on water". (Any one know what Aristostle's school was called?)
The "earth" represents the original truth before it was allegorized and this means that characters such as Adam (from the Hebrew word "adamah"
meaning "soil") and Peter (from the Greek for "rock") are linked to true elements. These earth elements are also linked to the color "red".
The "air" serves as cover for allegory and it is often in the form of history which has been transplanted from other times. In Greek mythology this
historic "air" was represented by the goddess Hera. Again, "cover" is a feminine characteristic, however many covers can also be expressed as
"male" if they are identified as cover my some other metaphor. For example, "white" is a cover metaphor and this idea is incorporated in the the
Biblical characters of Laban (white) and Hiram (whiteness). [The subjects of "red" and "white" are frequently discussed in alchemy writings.]
*Homework- examine the names and characteristics of the comic book heros known as "The Fantastic Four" and see if you can identify a pattern.
**Extra credit - study the TV series "Smallville" for possible allegoric influences. (i.e. Why does a "stone" from Clark Kent's home planet make
If Plato's principle of correctness works equally well with both Greek and Hebrew writings it is obvious that Greek philosophy must be more closely
related to Judaism that any literal history suggests. However, even when it is realized that ancient authors are entirely unreliable in terms of the
literal history they present, it is not possible to entirely ignore the literal version of events. The Sophists realized that the best lies often
contain an element of truth and therefore they valued real knowledge for the cover that it could provide for their hidden knowledge. For example, a
Sophist writer might have knowledge of an ancient city destroyed in a war and use its ruins as the setting for a fictional war. As long as no
accounts existed that refuted the false version of events provided by the Sophist, scholars of later generations would have no choice but to accept
the false version as true. If, on the other hand, no ruined city existed, the Sophist history might easily be dismissed as fiction.
Completely separating true elements that serve as cover from false elements appears to be nearly impossible. However it seems reasonable to suspect
that information that is quoted as being from other historical sources is at least somewhat less likely to be entirely false than the surrounding
allegory since any quote is generally intended to add credibility to the writer's own version of events and this is precisely the role that cover is
supposed to play. This is not to say that all quotes should be trusted, but it does lend authority to certain quotes that seem to provide very
important pieces to an otherwise mysterious past.
How did the Greeks learn the secrets of Hebrew allegory? Josephus provides what appears to be a valuable clue in this regard when he discusses the
close relationship between the Hebrew king Solomon and the Tyrian king Hiram. The Bible speaks of this relationship and tells how king Hiram provided
valuable assistance to Solomon during the building of Solomon's Temple, but Josephus' account goes further. In Antiquities of the Jews Josephus
reports that: "…the king of Tyre (Hiram) sent sophisms and enigmatical sayings to Solomon, and desired he would solve them, and free them from the
ambiguity that was in them. Now so sagacious and understanding was Solomon, that none of these problems were too hard for him; but he conquered them
all by his reasonings, and discovered their hidden meaning, and brought it to light." (Book 8, chapter 5, para. 3) These seemingly innocent
"problems" can certainly be understood as being related to allegory and the apparently frequent exchanges of this type of material between Solomon
and Hiram certainly could provide the basis for a full-fledged code. Josephus' then goes on to quote a man named Menander, who supposedly used the
Tyrian archives as his source, and he seems to confirm much of what Josephus said about Hiram and Solomon. However, Menander also tells of a servant
of Hiram named Abdemon, "…who always conquered the difficult problems which Solomon, king of Jerusalem, commanded him (Hiram) to explain." (Ant.
b8c5p3) Since the Hebrew word for "father" is "'ab" this "Abdemon" appears to be the "father of demons". This designation at the very least
indicates that at least one form of allegoric knowledge originated with these exchanges between Hiram and Solomon.
Tyre was a Phoenician city and the fact that the Phoenicians are credited with the development of the first alphabet means that they would have
certainly been open to other innovations in language and writing. Also, by 1200 BCE the Phoenicians had become the dominant traders throughout the
Mediterranean thus providing the means (and perhaps motive) for them to spread allegoric knowledge to others. If the supposed dates of Solomon's
reign (961-922 BCE by some accounts) are any where near literal truth, then it is not unreasonable to speculate that knowledge of Hebrew allegory
could have reached Europe sometime before 900 BCE, which means that this knowledge could easily have provided the inspiration for Greek mythology and
Josephus actually admitted to an ancient link between the Greeks and the Hebrews when he quoted a letter that was supposedly written by Areus the king
of Lacedaemon to the Jewish high priest Onias III (fl. 180's – 175 BCE). It reads:
"AREUS, KING OF THE LACEDEMONIANS, TO ONIAS, SENDETH GREETING.
We have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered that both the Jews and the Lacedemonians are of one stock, and are derived from the
kindred of Abraham. It is but just therefore that you, who are our brethren, should send to us about any of your concerns as you please. We will also
do the same thing, and esteem your concerns as our own, and will look upon our concerns as in common with yours. Demoteles, who brings you this
letter, will bring your answer back to us. This letter is four-square; and the seal is an eagle, with a dragon in his claws." (Antiquities, Book12,
chapter 4, para. 10)
There is nothing in the ancient literal histories that offers any possible explanation for the assertion made by King Areus, and Josephus’ apparent
failure to explain the connection anywhere in his twenty books of Jewish history seems even more puzzling.
The name "Lacedemonian" again is suggestive of the "demons" while the prefix "Lace-" can be associated with the Greek word "lusis" which means
"divorce" and thus the Lacedemonians can be viewed as representing a splinter group of Sophists. The Lacedemonians were also known as "Spartans"
and this word appears derived from the Greek word "speiro" which means "to scatter" and this idea is linked to "seeds" (G. sperma). In Hebrew a
"seed" is expressed as "zera'" while the city of "Tyre" is expressed as "Tsor" and this phonetic similarity as well as the seemingly obvious
suggestion that seeds represent a beginning leads to the interpretation that the "Spartans" received knowledge from the Phoenicians.
According to literal histories it was the "Dorians" who led Sparta to her greatness after conquering the region around 1100 BCE and enslaving the
local inhabitants, but even if this literal history is true, it does not lessen the plausibility of later Phoenician influences. However, the fact
that descendants of Hercules supposedly aided the Dorians in their conquest means that this history is certainly tainted by allegory. The name
"Dorian" is supposedly derived from the name of the region from which they came, Doris, however it is also suggestive of the Greek word "dorea"
which means "gift" and this seems to be an appropriate way to allude to the transfer of knowledge.
In the New Testament the authors of the Books of Matthew and Luke provide conflicting genealogies of Christ and this clear contradiction cannot be
explained without some form of "interpretation". In most cases Christians will simply argue that for the sake of tradition the author of Luke
falsely attributed Mary's genealogy to Joseph. However, if Christ were viewed as an amalgamation of Judaic and Greek influences then two separate
genealogies would seem metaphorically understandable. One literal bloodline is traced through David's son Solomon, while the other line is traced
through David's son Nathan. The name "Nathan" literally means "to give" and this is clearly related to the idea of the "gift" suggested by
Dorian, however Nathan is also phonetically suggestive of "Athens".
Josephus' literal indication that Sparta held links to Judaism by no means excludes other cities from also gaining allegoric knowledge and Athens
clearly can be viewed as the home of Greek philosophy which is certainly allegoric in character. Also, the fact that there are many scholars, both
Christian and secular, that willingly admit that Greek philosophy played an important role in the development of Christianity means that a genealogy
of Christ that includes Athens seems metaphorically justified.
The name "Athens" is also phonetically suggestive of the Hebrew word "'athown" which means "donkey" and this link helps to explain a rather
strange situation found in the account of Christ's "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem. According to the author of the Gospel of Matthew, Christ's
entry into Jerusalem began when:
"They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them." (Matt. 21:7)
This creates a seemingly comical picture of Christ trying to simultaneously ride two animals of different sizes. However, by understanding the
"donkey" (G. onos) to be a reference to "Athens" things begin to make more sense. The "colt" on the other hand is expressed in Greek as
"polos" which is clearly suggestive of Paul (G. Paulus) and thus Christ served to unite Athens and Paul with the Judaism represented by Jerusalem.
(Other Gospel accounts are worded differently so that only one animal appears involved.)
Naturally, if the "donkey" served as the basis for the name "Athens" there must be a metaphoric reason for this association. The most famous
"donkey" of the Old Testament belonged the prophet Balaam who was summoned by the Moabite king Balak to "curse" Israel. The name "Balaam" (H.
bi'lam) literally means "not of the people" or in other words a "foreigner" and this provides one significant clue that can link Balaam and his
donkey to Athens. According to the account, found in the Book of Numbers chapter 22, the LORD spoke to Balaam and told him at first not to go to
Balak, but when the Balak persisted the LORD directed Balaam to go to Balak, but to "…do only what I tell you." (Numbers 22:20)
After Balaam got on his donkey to go to Balak the account continues:
"22 But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the LORD stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two
servants were with him.
23 When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand, she turned off the road into a field. Balaam beat
her to get her back on the road."
The "donkey" clearly sees something that Balaam does not and this unseen power is hampering his progress and preventing him from cursing Israel.
This invisible restraining force can be understood as providing a symbolic explanation as to why the Greek philosophers made no clear literal
references to Judaism despite its significant influence in their work.
After the donkey turns away from the "angel" and is beaten by Balaam two more times (for the magical total of "three"), the donkey miraculously
speaks. The donkey complains to Balaam about his treatment and then the "angel" appears and credits the donkey with saving Balaam's life. Balaam
admits to his "sin" and offers to turn back, but the angel instructs him to continue his journey but "…speak only what I tell you..." (Num.
In effect Balaam becomes a pawn of the LORD serving as a defender of Judaism. In the end Balaam ends up "blessing" the Hebrews rather than cursing
Athens also was the home of the Greek goddess Athena and among her various gifts to man was the taming of animals and thus one might guess that she
was the angel that guided Balaam's donkey. Athena was also known as "Parthenos" or "the Virgin" which provides a clear link to Christ's
virginal mother. The Romans, on the other hand, knew Athena as "Minerva" which provides a significant phonetic link to the Assyrian city called
"Nineveh" (H. Nineveh). Nineveh in turn played a key role in the story of Jonah which, when examined closely, shares many elements with the story
of Balaam, but from a different perspective.
According to the Book of Jonah, God instructed Jonah to go to Nineveh and "…preach against it…" (Jonah 1:2) Where Balaam had at first been kept
from going to Balak by the LORD's commands, Johah appeared to openly defy the LORD and set out to hide from him which eventually resulted in his
being swallowed by the fish that held him for the magical number of "three" days before spitting him out. Jonah was then ordered a second time to
go to Nineveh and this time he obeyed and Nineveh repented and was saved. Jonah's success at Nineveh is rather surprising considering Jonah's lack
of enthusiasm and the fact that the Assyrians were not worshippers of Yehovah and one might guess that it was actually Johah's apparent opposition to
the LORD that led the residents of Nineveh to accept his arguments for repentance. In other words, Jonah's greatest asset may have been his apparent
animosity for Nineveh's enemy. This interpretation leads to the suspicion that Jonah was actually a spy who infiltrated the enemy camp by pretending
to be on their side.
The name "Jonah" (H. Yonah) literally means "dove" (H. yownah) and if Jonah was a spy that brought peace through subterfuge, then the modern
association of the "dove" with "peace" is most likely of allegoric origin. It is also worth noting that the first "dove" mentioned in the Bible
played a more literal role as a spy when it was sent out by Noah from the ark to find dry land. (The "ring-dove" is expressed with the Hebrew word
"towr" while the Hebrew word for "to spy" is "tuwr".) There are enough phonetic similarities between the names Jonah (H. Yonah) and John (G.
Ioannes) to make an association, but the fact that the "dove" makes a literal appearance in each of the four Gospel accounts of Jesus' baptism by
John the Baptist leaves no doubt that the two names are metaphorically the same.
It is also clear that the name "John" can be linked to the Greek name "Ion" which literally means "moving thing" and this association then leads
back to Athens, which was reportedly founded by a people known as "Ionians". The Ionians were supposedly descended from Apollo's son Ion who was
the result of the rape of a woman named Creusa. When Ion was born, Cruesa's shame caused her to abandon him in the same cave where he had been
conceived. Later Creusa married a "foreigner" named Xuthus. Xuthus desperately wanted a son, but when his marriage failed to produce one, he
traveled to Apollo’s oracle at Delphi to pray for one. Creusa arrived at the oracle first and discovered the son she had long ago abandoned was
employed there and that he had been named Ion. Before Creusa could inform Ion who she was, Xuthus arrived and embraced him claiming that Apollo had
declared that Ion was his son. Creusa then broke down and told Ion the whole story about Apollo and this confused Ion because he had just learned
that Apollo had identified Xuthus as his father. Creusa then explained that Apollo was his true father, but he had been given to Xuthus as a
“gift”. The literal result of this story places the adopted son of a foreigner in the household of the king’s daughter and this arrangement can
easily be understood as being suggestive of espionage.
In Plato's dialogue Ion, the title character is presented as a "rhapsode" from Ephesus who was only interested in the works of Homer. A rhapsode
was literally a reciter of poems, but Plato twice has Socrates link Ion's profession to that of the "actor" and this provides an indication that
Ion actually had two roles. Early in this dialog between Socrates and Ion, Socrates remarks: "…no man can be a rhapsode who does not understand
the meaning of the poet. For the rhapsode ought to interpret the mind of the poet to his hearers, but how can he interpret him well unless he knows
what he means?" This clearly indicates that Ion has sufficient knowledge to "interpret" the writings of the poet and therefore this character is a
As the dialog continues Socrates suggests that Ion should be able to interpret poets other than Homer since they have much in common with Homer, but
Ion responds by asking:
"Why then, Socrates, do I lose attention and go to sleep and have absolutely no ideas of the least value, when any one speaks of any other poet; but
when Homer is mentioned, I wake up at once and am all attention and have plenty to say?"
To this Socrates then replies saying:
Soc. "The reason, my friend, is obvious. No one can fail to see that you speak of Homer without any art or knowledge. If you were able to speak of
him by rules of art, you would have been able to speak of all other poets; for poetry is a whole."
In other words Socrates is admitting that Ion is failing to use his knowledge to correctly interpret Homer and this can then be understood as implying
that when the made up meanings used in false interpretations are employed in an interpretation of another poet, they fail to produce a believable
result. Plato then has Socrates explain himself this way:
"The gift which you (Ion) possess of speaking excellently about Homer is not an art, but, as I was just saying, an inspiration; there is a divinity
The combination of "inspiration" and "divinity moving" seems to allude to Gen. 1:2, which reads:
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
This connection indicates that Ion is serving as a "cover" for the "waters".
Later Socrates begins to question Ion as to who is better qualified to determine the correctness of wording when a poet writes of various subjects or
arts. Ion admits that a charioteer is better qualified to judge the appropriateness of wording in a narrative of a chariot race, and he then goes on
to admit that a physician, a prophet, and a fisherman could all at times be better qualified than a rhapsode when it came to judging passages of
Homer's that were related to their particular expertise.
The conversation then continues:
"Socrates: And as I have selected from the Iliad and Odyssey for you passages which describe the office of the prophet and the physician and the
fisherman, do you, who know Homer so much better than I do, Ion, select for me passages which relate to the rhapsode and the rhapsode's art, and
which the rhapsode ought to examine and judge of better than other men."
"Ion. All passages, I should say, Socrates.
Soc. Not all, Ion, surely. Have you already forgotten what you were saying? A rhapsode ought to have a better memory.
Ion. Why, what am I forgetting?"
Ion's failure to accept his earlier statements and exclude the passages cited by Socrates demonstrates the inconsistency that is often found when
dealing with a liar and the fact that the topic at hand is related to interpreting the actions of specific occupations, it is probable that Plato
wished to demonstrate that lying was one part of Ion's trade (as well as Plato's). Plato then has Socrates resume his line of questioning using a
pilot, a physician again, a cowherd, and a spinning-woman as examples and each time Ion admits that they could at times be better qualified to judge
poetry. However, when Socrates tries the example of a general, Ion changes his tune:
"Soc. And in judging of the general's art, do you judge of it as a general or a rhapsode?
Ion. To me there appears to be no difference between them.
Soc. What do you mean? Do you mean to say that the art of the rhapsode and of the general is the same?
Ion. Yes, one and the same."
This admission by Ion demonstrates clearly that he is engaged in some kind of warfare and on one level this war involves ideas, but in regards to the
"Ion" metaphor a more literal could have also been intended because Ion saw "no difference". Socrates then proceeds to inquire as to why Ion
remains only a rhapsode when he could be a general and Ion responds:
"Ion. Why, Socrates, the reason is, that my countrymen, the Ephesians, are the servants and soldiers of Athens, and do not need a general; and you
and Sparta are not likely to have me, for you think that you have enough generals of your own."
It is interesting to note that Ion seems to suggest that Socrates was Spartan, or at least had influence with the Spartans, even though Socrates had
reportedly fought against the Spartans in the Peloponnesian War and this suggests that Socrates also served as a spy serving both sides.
The conversation goes on:
"Soc. My good Ion, did you never hear of Apollodorus of Cyzicus?
Ion. Who may he be?
Soc. One who, though a foreigner, has often been chosen their general by the Athenians: and there is Phanosthenes of Andros, and Heraclides of
Clazomenae, whom they have also appointed to the command of their armies and to other offices, although aliens, after they had shown their merit. And
will they not choose Ion the Ephesian to be their general, and honour him, if he prove himself worthy? Were not the Ephesians originally Athenians,
and Ephesus is no mean city?"
Here Socrates is clearly showing how foreigners were allowed to command the forces of Athens, however what Socrates fails to mention at this point is
that the Ephesians had been allied to Sparta in the Peloponnesian War which would seem to overshadow the fact that Ephesians were once Athenians.
"But, indeed, Ion, if you are correct in saying that by art and knowledge you are able to praise Homer, you do not deal fairly with me, and after all
your professions of knowing many, glorious things about Homer, and promises that you would exhibit them, you are only a deceiver, and so far from
exhibiting the art of which you are a master, will not, even after my repeated entreaties, explain to me the nature of it. You have literally as many
forms as Proteus; and now you go all manner of ways, twisting and turning, and, like Proteus, become all manner of people at once, and at last slip
away from me in the disguise of a general, in order that you may escape exhibiting your Homeric lore. And if you have art, then, as I was saying, in
falsifying your promise that you would exhibit Homer, you are not dealing fairly with me. But if, as I believe, you have no art, but speak all these
beautiful words about Homer unconsciously under his inspiring influence, then I acquit you of dishonesty, and shall only say that you are
With these remarks it seems virtually impossible not to accept the idea that Ion was in fact a spy and this impression is made even stronger by the
fact that Proteus also had the ability to foretell the future, which is precisely what a spy is expected to do.
In effect Athens can be viewed as representing a sharing of ideas related to allegoric writings, however these ideas were for the most part corrupted
or censored by Sophist spies claiming to speak the truth. Sparta on the other hand is most likely representative of Greek mythology and history,
which at times became the subject of Athenian interpretations and this at times led to "war".
The problem with any spy is that in order to gain the trust of the enemy, he must often commit acts against his friends. This means that a Sophist
spy would have to provide some true knowledge to the enemy, however determining exactly how much knowledge was safe to expose would have been
difficult to judge. It would be much like a card game in which a player who discards the wrong card can end up providing the winning hand to his
opponent. As a result it would seem natural to expect that Johns at times have become the Judas—betraying their masters and bringing about defeat.
King David—the first philosopher
The line between "friendship" and "love" is difficult to distinguish and therefore it is understandable for some to interpret the Greek term
"philosophia" as meaning "love of knowledge" when in fact "philos" is most often interpreted to mean only "friend". In Hebrew there are a
number of ways to express "love" and one of them is with the word "dowd" which serves as the basis for the Hebrew name "David". The Hebrew king
that carried this name was from the "tribe" of "Judah" and since Judah (H. Yehuwdah) is phonetically related to the Hebrew word "yada'" (to
know), it appears that David was also a "lover of knowledge".
The Hebrew word "dowd" can additionally mean "to boil" and this meaning is also assigned to the Hebrew word "chamar". "Chamar" in turn serves
as the basis for the Hebrew word "chomer" which is a unit of measure that is transliterated into English as "homer". This then provides a clear
suggestion that there is a metaphoric relationship between David and the writings attributed to the Greek writer known as Homer. In Greek the name
Homer is associated with the word "homoios" which means "like" or "resembling" and if this name is "correct" then one must ask the
question—Resembling what? While it is possible to speculate that the name Homer was intended to suggest that the Iliad and the Odyssey were
intended to resemble some other set of writings, it is also reasonable to view the name Homer as suggesting a form of allegoric interpretation. If
there was truly a link between Hebrew allegory and Greek philosophy then it is reasonable to suspect that the writings of Homer are actually
interpretations of Old Testament accounts.
Even a superficial effort to draw parallels between the Iliad and the Old Testament will naturally lead to comparisons between David and the great
Greek warrior Achilles who played a key roll in Homer's Iliad. According to Old Testament accounts David had had a close relationship with the
Hebrew king Saul, but when the prophet Samuel anointed David king in Saul's place, the two men became enemies—at least that’s how Saul saw it.
Despite receiving a clear mandate from Samuel that he was to be king, David refused to fight against his former master, and instead allowed the
"Philistines" to do the dirty work for him. Achilles had his own conflict with the Greek king Agamemnon and as a result he also refused to fight,
but in this case the refusal meant that Achilles would not aid the Greeks in their war against the Trojans, at least for a while. Achilles never
fought king Agamemnon directly, but he did fight and kill the similarly named Memnon who was an "Ethiopian" king fighting on the side of the
Trojans. The name "Memnon" is clearly suggestive of the Greek word "mnemeion" which means "tomb" and this idea is then related to the idea of a
"grave" which is expressed in Hebrew as "she'owl" and thus Memnon is correctly named if he is intended to represent Saul (H. Sha'uwl").
[Saul's father was named "Kish" (H. Qiysh) which links him to the nation known as "Cush" (H. Kuwsh) and which Greek translators identified as
"Ethiopia".] Since David was literally at one point openly allied with the Philistines, a division of the character of Saul by Homer into two
entities can be viewed as a device that allowed Achilles to also fight (or not fight) on both sides.
The name Achilles can metaphorically be understood in numerous ways that are compatible with David's role, but there appear to be no convincing links
between the two names. (One possible interpretation relies on the Hebrew word "'ach" (brother) and the Greek name "Helen".) However, it seems
reasonable to guess that extreme caution was exercised in regards to this aspect simply because of prominence both characters held in their respective
accounts. However, other indirect links between David and Achilles are provided in other Old Testament accounts. Achilles was known for his "heel"
which was the only place where he could be mortally wounded. This provides a connection to the Hebrew patriarch Jacob (H. Ya'aqob) whose name was
assigned because he was born grasping his twin brother Esau's heel (H. 'aqab). (The brothers of Helen were also "twins" known as the Dioscuri.)
Since both Esau and David were described as being "red" or "ruddy" in appearance it is clear that some connection exists between these two
characters, which then suggests that Jacob represents the weakness of Achilles. If Jacob does represent some sort of allegoric kryptonite, then it
seems reasonable to find this magical stone at a place that Jacob himself referred to as "the gate of heaven" (Gen. 28:17). This gate is also
known as Jacob's Ladder and it is linked to the town that was known as both Bethel and Luz. The name "Bethel" literally means "house of God"
while "Luz" (H. Luwz) is suggestive of the Hebrew word "luwts" which means "interpreter". These clues all indicate that Jacob's Ladder
represents some piece of allegory that is rather special.
An examination of the allegory that follows Jacob's vision reveals that it is actually his son's that serve as the gate. The name of each of
Jacob's sons provides an idea that can logically be matched against the literal history provided by the Old Testament as a whole and the result is a
rough outline to the true history of Judaism. For example, Jacob's fourth son was named "Judah" which is associated with "knowledge" (H. yada')
and this implies that prior to Judah no recorded history existed. This then means that Jacob's first three son's—Reuben, Simon, and
Levi—represent manufactured history. The names "Simon" and "Levi", which respectively mean "something heard" and "attachment" certainly can
be understood to support this view. The name "Reuben" (H. Re'uwben), which means "see ye a son" is less convincing but if it is associated with
the Hebrew word "re'abown" which means "famine" then the pattern is clear. In other words—first came famine, then came things heard, which
were then attached to the empty space that proceeded recorded knowledge. These ideas can then be associated to the "Books of Moses" which have been
demonstrated by numerous scholars to contain elements borrowed from other ancient peoples. The fact that Moses himself was identified as a "Levite"
provides further evidence that this interpretation is correct.
(The four son's born to Jacob's "concubines" seem to indicate that the "Hebrews" were in fact related to the Hyksos dynasty in Egypt.)
[In effect Jacob's sons serve as a "translator" and this translator is also metaphorically represented by the “breastplate of judgment” worn by
the Jewish high priest and which contained twelve stones representing each of Jacob's sons. This breastplate also held "the Urim and the Thummim"
and therefore the identification of the Urim and Thummim as a translating device by the author of the Book of Mormon is an extremely significant
indication as to origin of the Mormon religion. It is also worth noting that the Book of Mormon is an attempt to attach history where none previously
The fact that a critical piece of Old Testament allegory can be linked to Achilles' vulnerability certainly adds to the probability that the link
between the Old Testament and Greek mythology is real, but still this is only the tip of the iceberg. Christ's similarities to numerous other
mythological characters are not accidental—they are indications of how wide the Sophist net has been spread. Prometheus, Krishna, Mithra, Buddha,
Horas, and many others are creations of Sophism. Even Mohammad is surrounded by the correctness that identifies Islam as a Sophist creation. Thus
humanity has been enslaved by its desire for salvation.