In Doing This… They Governed The Entire Human Race!

Introduction

Mauro Biglino is an internationally acclaimed Italian author and scholar of ancient Hebrew. He has translated Bible texts with precision, focusing on the literal meaning of Hebrew words for Vatican-approved Interlinear Bibles. His findings have challenged traditional Catholic interpretations, revealing cultural memories preserved in the Bible but obscured by centuries of translation and theological dogma.

This presentation explores the similarities between the biblical Elohim and the Greek theoi, their governance over humanity, and the processes of land division described in ancient texts.

Biblical Context: The Elohim and Yahweh

The Bible describes the Elohim as divine entities with distinct territories. Yahweh, one of the Elohim, was assigned the descendants of Jacob. Key passages emphasize Yahweh’s exclusive guidance over his assigned people, implying that other Elohim governed other groups.

In Genesis 14, Abraham swears an oath before Elon, a title meaning “the one above.” This title was later conflated with Yahweh in the Masoretic text, but older texts, such as the Qumran manuscripts, distinguish between the two. The Qumran texts show that Abraham swore allegiance to Elon without mentioning Yahweh, underscoring the differences in how the texts evolved over time.

Plato’s Account: The Division of Territories

Plato’s Critias describes the gods dividing the earth into territories by lot, each god overseeing specific regions and populations. The Greek texts mirror the biblical account of the Elohim receiving territorial assignments. These divisions were conducted peacefully, with the gods shepherding their people without physical force.

Plato contrasts this with Yahweh’s approach, described in the Bible as militaristic, aligning with Yahweh’s portrayal as a warrior.

Semantic Analysis of Key Terms

Biglino emphasizes the importance of understanding the original meanings of terms:

• Elohim: Often translated as “gods,” its exact meaning remains uncertain. It may denote powerful figures or judges, reflecting their functional roles rather than divinity.
• Elon: Commonly rendered as “Most High,” it simply means “the one above,” indicating a hierarchical position rather than a superlative divine status.
• Theoi: Plato notes that this term originally referred to stars, attributed to their rapid movement across the sky. The term later evolved to describe deities, reflecting their perceived dynamic and celestial nature.

The Role of Yahweh and the Elohim

Deuteronomy 32:8 highlights a division of nations based on the number of the Elohim’s children. The Qumran texts clarify that this division was based on the Elohim, not the Israelites, contradicting later biblical translations. Yahweh’s inheritance of Jacob’s descendants is framed as part of this broader distribution of humanity among the Elohim.

Comparative Mythology: Elohim and Theoi

The Elohim and theoi share overlapping attributes, with both groups governed by a supreme figure—Elon for the Elohim and Zeus for the theoi. These figures divided lands and governed populations, reflecting a shared narrative structure across ancient traditions.

Mauro Biglino discusses the children of Israel in the context of the division of nations and territories described in the Bible. He contrasts the Masoretic text with the older Qumran manuscripts, highlighting differences in interpretation and meaning.

The Children of Israel

Division of Nations

Masoretic Text: Deuteronomy 32:8 states that Elon (the Most High) divided the nations and established their boundaries based on the number of the children of Israel.

Qumran Texts: The older version of the text refers to the division being made according to the number of the children of the Elohim, not the children of Israel. This indicates that the Elohim were assigned their territories and peoples, with Yahweh receiving the descendants of Jacob as his portion.

Inheritance of Yahweh

Yahweh is described as receiving the children of Israel as his “inheritance” or assigned group.

The phrase “Yahweh guided him alone, with no foreign god with him” underscores Yahweh’s exclusive role in managing his people, distinct from the roles of other Elohim who governed other groups.

Significance of the Textual Difference

Biglino argues that the reference to the “children of Israel” in the Masoretic text is a later insertion, likely reflecting theological developments that sought to center the narrative around Israel.

In the older Qumran manuscripts, the emphasis is on the children of the Elohim, supporting the view that the division of humanity was originally understood as a broader allocation among divine entities.

Implications

Biglino suggests that the biblical narrative was later adapted to align with monotheistic theology, obscuring the earlier polytheistic framework where Yahweh was one of many Elohim assigned a specific group. The focus on the children of Israel as Yahweh’s portion highlights their special status in this revised theological narrative but departs from the original context of the text.

Conclusion

Biglino’s analysis suggests that both biblical and Greek texts preserve memories of actual historical events involving these governing figures. By re-examining ancient texts without preconceived theological interpretations, parallels emerge, offering insights into the shared cultural frameworks of antiquity.

Biglino’s work challenges traditional religious narratives, emphasizing a methodological approach that respects the integrity of ancient authors. His findings encourage re-evaluation of historical texts to uncover the cultural and historical realities they encode.