ancient conflict betwixt the prince of darkness, Sut, and Osiris or Horus, who suffers from the adversary in Amenta. The Hebrew Satan was the Egyptian Sut, who became the evil one of the later theology as an anthropomorphic rendering of Apap the serpent of evil. Sut was one of the seven sons of the old First Mother, the goddess of the Great Bear in the astronomical mythology. He was not one of “the sons of god,” as there was no god extant when he was born. Sut was brought forth twin with Horus, and first born as the adversary of his brother Osiris. In a truer version of the mythos the conflict was in phenomena that were physical, not moral. There are no morals in mythology, when the characters are non-human, and when the mythical heroes and monsters have been represented as human characters we need to know the mythology once more. The Bible is full of such characters, and Job is one of them. In the Ritual Sut is the adversary of Osiris, or, still earlier, the opponent of Horus. He undoes what the Good Being does. He is a malicious destroyer; the author of disease. He is permitted to persecute Horus and Osiris to the death. In his character of the adversary, the power of darkness, he says, “I am Sut, who causeth the storms and tempests, and who goeth round the horizon of heaven, like one whose heart is veiled” (Rit., ch. 39). Which is equivalent to saying, “I am black-hearted.” Sut is here the prototype of Satan, who “goes to and fro in the earth,” and of whom it is elsewhere said, “Your adversary the devil walketh about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour” (I Peter V. 8). So Satan the destroyer plays the devil with the person, the possessions, the belongings of Job, who answers to the suffering Osiris in this development of the ancient drama, in which Horus or Job was no more a human personage than is Sut or Satan. They can be studied in the Ritual without disguise or falsification of character, and without a long series of disputations, lamentations, and sermons taking the place of the primitive mystery. The “parable” taken up by Job is the battle of Sut and Osiris in the mythical representation. Job the afflicted one is the suffering Osiris who passed into Amenta as the victim of the power of darkness, Sut the tormentor, the tempter, the desolator, the destroyer. Amongst other devilries, Sut flung his ordure at Horus (Rit., ch. 17); he also pierced him in the eye; but, where Osiris suffered dumbly and opened not his mouth, Job laments his lot, and takes to cursing the day of his birth and wishing that he had been addled in the egg. The character of Job is fathomlessly inferior to that of the good Osiris, called the motionless of heart.
The suffering Horus transforms in “the west” and becomes the bennu Osiris or the phœnix. Job does the same, or expects to do so, when he says, “I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the phœnix.” The phœnix was the emblem of the solar god who died to resuscitate in the nest of Amenta. He enters the nest as a hawk and issues forth as a phœnix (Rit., 13, 1). When the battle with Sut is over and Horus rises again triumphant over all his trials that were inflicted on him by the adversary, his property is doubled; he is crowned with the double crown as conqueror and king of the double earth. This is puerilely represented by the Lord restoring to Job twofold of all he had before and overwhelming him with material wealth.
The drama in the mysteries of Amenta was a stupendous representation, true to nature; but when the chief character has been turned into a human personage covered with putrefying sores, when the adversary is made equally personal, and the Lord commissions the Devil to try to torment and to tempt this poor human sufferer because he was a perfectly just, good, and upright man, the drama becomes a stupendous misrepresentation not only of divine justice, but of the original setting forth and rendering of the mythos. The name of Job is commonly taken to signify “the assailed one,” which perfectly describes the type of the suffering Osiris. He is the assailed one, and Sut is the assailant. How the good Osiris was assailed by the evil Sut and his Sami, the Apap-dragon and the Sebau, may be seen through all the mysteries of Amenta or of Sheol.
Sut the prototypal adversary is the evil one personified in Amenta as opponent of the deliverer Horus; he is the keeper of the prison-house for death, to which Horus comes as lord of life and liberty. The speaker in the Ritual cries to Ra, “O deliver me from the god who seizes souls. The darkness in which Sekari dwells is terrifying to the weak.” This god is Sut (the Hebrew Satan), and darkness is the breath of his domain. In this darkness the Osiris suffers, supplicating Ra for light. Job sitting in the ashes, covered with boils from head to foot, and scraping himself with a potsherd, is a gross physical rendering of the manes in Amenta, who is scraped to get rid of the impurities and uncleannesses with which the soul from this world finds itself afflicted in the other life. The querulous, complaining Job is but a poor portrait of the speaker in the Ritual, and the Egyptian wisdom has to be restored before the genesis of the drama can be understood.
Osiris was the great god in matter as source or well-spring of life. He rested as the perfect one in Amenta, without sign of breath or beat of heart, but as the fount of motion and the fulfiller of existence in the nether earth, where he suffered in his death and burial, though not directly. Deity could not die nor suffer in itself; and this part of the character was represented by the human Horus. He was the sufferer in various natural phenomena; and being portrayed in human guise as the mortal, this led the way to the later euhemerizing of the mythical representations and the reproducing of the drama as human history. It was the human Horus who was pierced and tortured by Sut in death when it was his time to triumph and he became the king and conqueror in his turn. The suffering Horus only conquered Sut when he transformed and became the god in his turn and made his resurrection from Amenta. Job is this fearfully afflicted Horus or Osiris, suffering every evil that could be let loose on him by his adversary. But the scene is in Sheol, not on earth. Job is the “servant,” like the suffering Messiah described by Isaiah, and like the human Horus, who was maimed and deformed, dumb and blind, as An-ar-ef in the land of darkness. When Job “takes up his parable” he is the sufferer in Amenta, the Hebrew Sheol. He goes blackened where there is no sun. He is a brother to the jackals in the paths of darkness, and a companion to ostriches which furnish the feathers of Maati in the Egyptian judgment hall. He is cast into the mire of the pit. He exclaims, “Why do ye persecute me as a god, and are not satisfied with my flesh? And after my skin hath been thus destroyed, out of
my flesh shall I see God” (Job XIX. 22, 26). A skin for the body is an expression peculiarly Egyptian. The god who is called the divine soul in the Ritual (ch. 165, A) is addressed as the “concealer of skins”—that is, a hider of the body of those who rise again transformed in the divine likeness of a soul eternalized. In the judgment scenes a second skin=a second body is the sign of re-embodiment after death, as a sahu or divine mummy. That is the shape in which Amsu-Horus rises from the tomb as vindicator and avenger of Osiris and the buried dead, the naked who become the clothed in the new body. In the case of Job it seems that the Lord has taken the skin or body of flesh, but is not satisfied. Job is a manes in Sheol. Nevertheless his resurrection from the pit is assured. Hence his exclamation, “I know that my vindicator liveth, and that he shall stand up at the last upon the earth. And after my skin hath been thus destroyed, yet from (or without) my flesh shall I see God”—for himself, and not vicariously by means of another (Job XIX. 25-27).
There is an imposing picture in the book of Job (XXVI) which is purely Egyptian. “The dead tremble beneath the waters, and the inhabitants thereof in the presence of the deity. Sheol is naked before him, and Abaddon hath no covering. He stretcheth out the north over empty space and hangeth the earth upon nothing. He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent under them. He closeth in the face of his throne and spreadeth his cloud upon it. He hath described a boundary upon the face of the waters unto the confines of light and darkness. The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his rebuke. He stilleth the sea by his power, and by his understanding he smiteth Rahab. By his spirit the heavens are established. His hand hath pierced the fleeing serpent.” The stretcher of heaven for covering was Atum-Iu (or Ra) when he attained the solar sovereignty. He is addressed in this character by the manes, who is in dread of the deluge: “O thou great coverer of heaven, in thy name of stretcher (of the sky) grant that I may have power over the water and not be drowned” (Rit., 57). The heaven thus stretched overhead was represented as water, hence the greatness of the power that held it aloft in safety. The deceased beneath the waters are the manes in Amenta, where the waters are an image of the lower Nun, the sky as water below the horizon. Abaddon or destruction lurked below in the shape of the Apap-reptile, the destroyer, the great serpent in the waters of darkness, who was pierced and smitten through and through when he rose up in rebellion against Ra or Horus or Atum-Iu=Iahu. Atum-Iu the Lord, whom we shall identify with Ihuh, was the architect who finished the building of the heavens; and in the book of Job it is Ihuh the Lord who claims to have laid the foundations of the earth and says, “Declare, if thou hast understanding, who determined the measures thereof, or who stretched the line upon it. Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened, or who laid the corner-stone thereof when the morning stars sang and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job XXXVIII. 4, 7.) To “stretch the line” is an expression peculiarly Egyptian, used frequently as synonymous with laying the foundations of the temple. The last chapters of the book contain the chief zootypes belonging to
the Egyptian astronomy. “The Bear with her sons” (ch. 38, 32) is a picture of the ancient mother in the celestial heptanomis with her seven sons. The first and foremost of these was Behemoth, the hippopotamus of Sut (and his mother), who is described here as “the chief of the ways of god.” His fellow was the crocodile of Sebek-Horus, which is here called Leviathan. The foundations of the heavens were certainly laid in or by the bear and her seven sons, the first two of which were the twins Sut and Horus, the hippopotamus and the crocodile; and it is equally certain that these foundations were laid in the Egyptian astronomy. This will show that the writer is employing the Egyptian wisdom, and therefore it may be that he refers to the course of precession, albeit vaguely, in the following allusion: “Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days began, and caused the dayspring to know its place, that it might take hold of the ends of the earth?” which looks like the equinox upon its travels, although treated as the “morning” and the visiting “dayspring” from on high that makes its all-embracing circuit in the great year of the world.
When Job “took up his parable” he found it in the Book of the Dead, and is himself the speaker as the manes in Amenta, where we obtain foothold once more in the phenomena of nature, which were represented sanely and scientifically by the Egyptian sages, who laid the ground so that the eschatological rendering could follow the earlier mythos. Names have been omitted, the prototypal figures effaced, wisdom turned into ignorance, and the remains of Egyptian mythology and eschatology have been foisted on the world as an original revelation given in the Hebrew tongue; whereas the fundamental subject-matter of the sacred writings and the very God himself who is supposed to have revealed the truth in them are non-original as biblical, and only recognizable as Egyptian. The prayer of Jonah in the belly of the fish shows him to be another form of the Afflicted One who is for three days and three nights in the lowermost depths at the time of the winter solstice. In this legend the belly of the fish is identical with the belly of Sheol, the womb of the under-world. In the ancient fragment quoted in the second chapter Jonah says, “I called out of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol cried I; thou heardest my voice. For thou didst cast me into the depth, in the heart of the seas, and the flood was round about me; all thy waves and thy billows passed over me. And I said, I am cast out from before thine eyes; yet I will look again towards thy holy temple (i.e., on the mount). The waters compassed me about, even to the soul. The deep was round about me; the weeds were wrapped about my head. I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; earth with her bars (closed) upon me for ever; yet thou hast brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.” There is nothing whatever about the fish in this fragment. On the contrary, the speaker is in the belly of Sheol, which is the Kamite Amenta. In this nether-world he is at the roots of the mount of earth which stands in the waters of the abyss. The womb of Sheol might be represented as it was by the water-cow or a great fish. A great fish in the form of a crocodile was one of the types of the ancient mother who brought forth Sebek-Horus from the Nun as her young crocodile, just as she
brought forth Sut as her young hippopotamus. The sufferer in Sheol is the same here as in the Psalms and the book of Job, and both are identical with the suffering Osiris in the mysteries of Amenta. We have now to take a backward look in the course of establishing the links between the Egyptian wisdom and the Hebrew writings.
Religion in Egypt first began in worship or propitiation of the primal providence that was figured as the Great Mother who brought forth the seven elemental powers called her children. These powers in Egypt were the seven Ali. In Phœnicia they are the seven Elohim, in Assyria they are seven forms of the Ili, and in Israel the seven Elohim, Kabirim, or Baalim. Sut was one of these, and Sut upon his mountain at the pole became El-Shaddai in his Hebrew form of Seth. The company of seven (with the Great Mother) passed into the astronomical mythology as the seven great spirits which were divinized as star gods with Anup, a form of Sut, at the pole. Under the figure of Israel, the abandoned female, later writers in the Old Testament denounce the pre-monogamous Great Mother as the harlot of promiscuous sexual intercourse. Jeremiah rejoices furiously because “she that hath borne seven languisheth,” ashamed and confounded, and “hath given up the ghost” (XV. 9). When the one god had been “lifted up” as Ra in the solar mythos and Huhi the eternal in the eschatology by both the Egyptians and the Jews, or by the Egyptian Jews, the previous divinities called the ancestors of Ra were superseded, or their powers were absorbed in or blended with the one great power, who was now the all-one as Neb-er-ter.
“When the children of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord” (Ihuh), and served the Baalim and Ashtoreth (Judges II. 11, 14), they were returning to the worship of the most ancient Great Mother and her sons the Ali, the companions, the brothers in the first circle of the gods; the Baalim being one with the Elohim and the Kabirim. “Return (says Ihuh), O backsliding children (the two sisters Judah and Israel), for I am a husband to you” (Jer. III. 14). This backsliding, however, was itself a return to Israel’s earlier love—“Israel,” that is, as a part of the “common, dim populations” of Syria, Phœnicia or Canaan, and Palestine. The change from Baal to Ihuh is indicated by Hosea (II. 16, also by Jeremiah III) when it is said to Israel, “And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, thou shalt call me ‘my husband,’ and thou shalt call me no longer Baal. For I will take away the names of the Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be memorialized by name.” The Baalim, like the Elohim and Âbirim, were the Ali, companion gods or powers, that were originally a group of seven, to whom El or Baal was added as the eighth or highest God. They existed in the time of the totemic matriarchate before the husband or the father could be known personally, whether as human or divine. In this passage the deity becomes monogamous, and Israel, as a feminine equivalent for the suppressed goddess, is to be his wife. The language of the “prophets” concerning the whoredom of Israel cannot be comprehended apart from the status of the woman in communal connubium. The whore of later language is the representative of the totemic woman, who might cohabit with seven or any other appointed number of consorts. The harlot in mythology was the Great Mother,
whose own children were her consorts in the beginning. When the fatherhood was divinized the god became the husband, the one instead of the seven or eight, who were the Ali, Illi, Elohim, Âberim, or Baalim. Israel had consorted with the Baalim, and therefore cohabited promiscuously. And after the one god was made known to her as a father and a husband, she still went a-whoring after the earlier gods. Hence the denunciations of Israel as the whore who would not truly play the part of wife.
Hebraists have surmised, and some Hebrews (known to the writer) have admitted, that the prefix B in B’Jah (B’Jah is Jehovah, Is. XXVI. 4, and B’ Jah is his name) is an abbreviation for the name of Baal. If written out fully this would read, Baal-Iah=Baal is Jah. Bealiah is a proper name in the book of Chronicles I. XII. 5, in which we see that Baal-Iah as divinity supplied a personal name. Thus the Baal who is Iah Hy would be the Iah who was one of the Baalim; and the earliest Baalim were a form of the seven companions, like the Kabarim and Elohim, which are followed in the book of Genesis by the god named Iahu-Elohim. The one god in Israel is made known to Moses by the two names of hvhy and Hy, Ihuh and Iah. Now a priest of On (Osarsiph) would naturally learn at On of the one-god Atum-Ra, who was Huhi the eternal in the character of God the father and Iu in the character of God the son, which two were one. In accordance with Egyptian thought, that which was for ever was the only true reality. This was represented by Huhi the eternal. And Huhi is the god made known to Israel by the priest of On. Gesenius derives the name of Ihuh from a root huh, which root does not exist in Hebrew. But it does exist in Egyptian. Huh or heh signifies ever, everlastingness, eternity, the eternal. Huhi was a title that was applied to Ptah, Atum-Ra, and Osiris, as Neb-Huhi the everlasting lord, or as the supreme one, self-existing, and eternal god, which each of these three deities represented in turn as one divine dynasty succeeded another in the Egyptian religion. An eternity of existence was imaged by the Egyptians as ever-coming or becoming; hence ever-coming or ever-becoming was a mode of imaging the eternal being. Thus the one god as their Huhi was not only he who is for ever as the father, but also he who comes for ever as the son. This visible mode of continuity by means of coming naturally involved becoming, according to the Egyptian doctrine of kheper, which includes ever-evolving, ever-transforming, ever-perpetuating, ever-becoming, under the one word kheper. Thus the name of an eternal, self-existent being which is hvhy in Hebrew can be traced as Huhi, the name for the one eternal, ever-living, ever-lasting god as Egyptian. And now for the first time we can distinguish the one name, hvhy from the other Hy, if only on Egyptian ground. “Iu,” with variants in Au, Iau, Aui, and others, is also an Egyptian word, but with no linguistic relationship to the word Huh. Iu is likewise the name of an Egyptian god, as Iu-em-hetep, he who comes with peace, who was primarily the son of Ptah, and who was repeated in the cult of Atum-Ra as Nefer-Atum. In fact, Atum-Ra is both Huhi and Iu as the one god living in truth, the father manifesting as the ever-coming son, who was Iu-sa the son of Iusāas in the cult of On. All that was ever represented to the Jewish mind by the name of Ihuh
(Ihvh or Jehovah) had been expressed to the Egyptian by the word huhi, or, later, hehi. As Egyptian “huh” signified everlastingness, millions of times, eternity, and “Huhi” was also a name of their god the eternal. It had been a title, we repeat, of Ptah, of Atum, and of Osiris, each in turn, in three different cults at Memphis, On, and Abydos. Huhi, then, was the eternal as the father; he who always had been, ever was, ever should be, and hence the everlasting god.
Iu was the ever-coming son, Iu-sa or Iu-em-hetep, the son who comes with peace as periodic manifestor for the eternal father. Thus the One God of the Jews was Egyptian in this twofold character, both by nature and by name.
The change in Israel from the worship of El-Shaddai to the worship of Ihuh, from the Elohistic to the Jehovistic god, corresponds to the change from the stellar to the solar worship in the astronomical mythology. El in the highest was the star-god on the summit of the mountain, who in the Kamite mythos might be Sut, Seth, or Anup at the pole. The pole was represented by the mount, one Egyptian name of which is Sut, denoting standing-ground. The ruler of the pole-star was the lord of standing-ground or station at the fixed centre of the heavens. The highest El was the eighth of the Ali or Baalim. In Hebrew he is called El-Shaddai, commonly rendered the powerful or mighty one. Another rendering, however, of the name is more than probable. This was the most high god, El-Elyon, whom the Phœnicians also called Israel. As Egyptian, it was Anup on the mount, or at the pole, the highest of the star-gods or Elohim who preceded the solar sovereignty of Ra. El-Shaddai, who was Phœnician, and had been co-worker with the Elohim in the legends of creation, was succeeded and superseded by the god of two names who is made known to Israel as “Ihuh” and Iahu, or “Iao”=Egyptian Iu. The Egyptian word Iu is also written , with u inherent, and has the meaning of coming, come, to come, and is the name of the ever-coming and eternal child, Iu-em-hetep, or Iusa, the coming son. In the Phœnician version the deity Iao=Iu is the coming son, the well-beloved, the only-begotten son of El, who was to be called Ieoud (or dvhy), the supposed, prototype of “something to come” in Christianity (see Bryant). The word Iu with these meanings in Egyptian agrees with Iah or Iahu in Hebrew, signifying come and to come. Thus Huhi is equivalent to hvhy, and Iu is equivalent to Hy as Ihu or Iao, the two forms of which name are different from each other at the root, but could be applied as two titles of the one god. Iah is portrayed as the god who is operative, audible, and visible in material phenomena. His are the mighty deeds. He is the manifestor for the father, the opener of Amenta in the solar mythos. The Song of Moses shows that Iah was the divine deliverer who triumphed gloriously over the adversaries of the father, as did this deliverer in the exodus from the lower Egypt of Amenta (Ex. XV. 2). Iah is the opponent of Amalek, with whom he makes war for ever, as did Horus with Apap, the eternal enemy (Ex. XVII. 16). Iah is the god who rides as conqueror through the deserts, (Ps. LXVIII. 4) and goes forth before his people marching through the wilderness. It was he who led his people “like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron” (Ps. LXXVII. 20). Iah is called upon as deliverer
from death and as the saviour from the sufferings of Sheol (Ps. CXVI). He is the coming one who is looked to and watched and waited for as the redeemer of Israel. It is to Iah the Hallelu-Iah of the Psalmist is raised. In short, the character is that of God the son, and therefore Iah is one with Iu the son of Atum-Huhi. Iah is god the son, and the son in Egyptian is the Messu. Thus, Iah the Messu is the Mes-Iah, hence the Messiah in Hebrew. The Messiah as Iah the Messu was the ever-coming son, like Iu, and Iu as Egyptian is he who comes as manifestor for the eternal father.
The duality of Ptah, also of Atum as Huhi the eternal father, and Iu the ever-coming son, is repeated and preserved in the “Pistis Sophia” of the Egypto-gnostics. Ptah is not mentioned by name. But the great forefather is called the father of all fatherhood, the god who was “parentless”; and Ptah is the one god, who, being gotten by his own becoming, was the self-existent and eternal one, Huhi (Eg.), Ihuh (Hebrew), Iao (Phœnician), or Ieou (Egypto-gnostic). The one god in two persons, or, as the Ritual expresses it, with two faces, becomes twain in the father and son. These are called Ieou the greater and Iao the lesser. Ieou the elder is “the overseer of the light”; Iao the younger is the good Sabaoth, who emanates from Ieou as a son from the father (B. II, 193). Iao is also designated Sabaoth-Adamas, who is the gnostic and Jewish deity Iao-Sabaoth thus identified with Atum-Ra, lord of the heavenly host. The same duality of father and son was figured in the twofold Athamas at Samothrace. “The two great books of Ieou” are mentioned in “Pistis Sophia,” which are said to have been written down by Enoch when Jesus “spoke with him from the tree of knowledge and the tree of life, which were the two trees in the paradise of Adam” (B. II, 246). The paradise of Adam was the garden of Atum, and the Jesus who spoke and uttered the sayings was the wise youth Iu, or Iu-em-hetep, the son of Atum, or Atum in his earlier character of Iu as the son of Ptah.