life should have been preserved in Egyptian tradition! It became part of the literary inheritance of the Egyptians!” (p. 36). Thus suggesting that the Egyptians derived their mythology and folk-tales from the Hebrew Pentateuch.
But to resume: the dramatis personæ in the Hebrew books of wisdom are chiefly the father and the son. The father is Ihuh, the self-existent and eternal god, and Iu (or Iusa) is the messianic son as manifestor in the cycles of all time. It is the father that is speaking of one of these periods, possibly a sothiac cycle, who says to Esdras, “The time shall come.” “My son Jesus shall be revealed with those that be with him, and they that remain shall rejoice within 400 years.” This was long thought to have been a prophecy of a Christ that was to come as an historical personage. But this son of god, whether named Iu, Iao, Iusa, Jesus, or Joseph, could no more become historical than god the father, both being one. And if this divine son could ever have become historical, he would have been Jesus the son of Atum-Ra at On, or, still earlier, Jesus the son of Ptah at Memphis. The “Wisdom of Jesus” in the Apocrypha is, according to the Prologue, the wisdom of two different Jesuses, the one being grandfather of the other. This can be explained by the Kamite mythology and the two representatives of that name in the two divine dynasties of Ptah and Atum-Ra. As Wilkinson remarked, “The Egyptians acknowledged two of this name (Jesus), the first the grandfather of the other, according to the Greeks, and the reputed inventor of medicine, who received peculiar honours on a certain mountain on the Libyan side of the Nile, near the City of Crocodiles, where he was reported to have been buried” (The Ancient Egyptians, vol. III, p. 205). There are not only two with the name of Jesus who represent the sayer for the father god; Solomon is likewise a form of the wise youth who uttered the wisdom in the sayings or logia kuriaka. We are told in the prologue that “this Jesus did imitate Solomon.” But Iu-em-hetep, the Egyptian Jesus, as the prince of peace, was Solomon by name. Thus the Jesus and Solomon of the Apocrypha, to whom the Wisdom of Jesus and the Wisdom of Solomon are ascribed, were two forms of the Word or Sayer, who was Iu the son (su) of Ptah, and Iu-em-hetep, the prince of peace, otherwise known to the Hebrews by name as Jesus and Solomon.
The most ancient wisdom was oral. It was conveyed by word of mouth, from mouth to ear, as in the mysteries. This consisted of the magical sayings or the great words of power. Following the oral wisdom, the earliest known records of written wisdom were collections of the sayings, which were continually enlarged, as by the Egyptian Jesus, or “the two of this name.” The Osirian Book of the Dead is largely a collection of sayings which were given by Ra the father in heaven to Horus the son, for him to utter as teacher of the living on earth and preacher to the manes in Amenta. The wisdom of Ptah the father was uttered by the son, who is the Word in person. The names for the son may be various in the several religious cults, but the type was one, no matter what the name. The sayings collected in some of the Hebrew books of wisdom, such as the book of Proverbs, are spoken as from the father to his son. “My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings” (Prov. IV. 20). “Hear me,
O my son,” is the formula in the book of Ecclesiasticus. It has now to be suggested that the mythical or divine originals of this father and son in the books of wisdom were the wise god Ptah and the youthful sage Iu, the sayer or logos, who was his manifesting word as the son. Egyptian literature as such has been almost entirely lost, but amongst the survivals lives the oldest book in the world. This is a book of wisdom, in the form of sayings, maxims, precepts, and other brief sentences, called the Proverbs of Ptah-Hetep, which was written in the reign of Tet-Ka-Ra or Assa, a Pharaoh of the fifth dynasty, who lived 5,500 years ago. The author’s name denotes that he was the worshipper of Ptah, and his collection contains the ancient wisdom of Ptah, although it is not directly ascribed to the god or to his son, the sayer, Iu-em-hetep. In this volume Ptah-hetep collects the good sayings, precepts, and proverbs of the ancient wisdom; the words of those who have heard the counsels of former days and the counsels heard of the gods. He addresses the god Ptah for authority to declare these words of wisdom, speaking as from a father to his son; and in reply “the majesty of this god says, Instruct him in the sayings of former days” (Records of the Past, 2nd Series, vol. III, p. 17). Ptah-hetep, then, the author who wrote a book with his own name to it 5,500 years since, assumes the position of the wise god Ptah addressing his son Iu-em-hetep, to whom the wisdom was communicated which was uttered in “the wise sayings, dark sentences, and parables,” and collected in such books as the Sayings of Jesus, the Wisdom of Jesus, the Wisdom of Ecclesiastes, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Psalms, and the Book of the Dead. We quote a few of the sayings from Ptah-hetep, which give us a glimpse of the intellectual height attained by the Egyptians 5,500 years ago. “No artist is endowed with the perfections to which he should aspire.” “He who perverts the truthfulness of his way, in order to repeat only what produces pleasure in the words of every man, great or small, is a detestable person.” “If thou art wise, look after thy house. Love thy wife without alloy. Fill her belly, clothe her back, anoint her, and fulfil her desires as long as she lives. It is a kindness which does honour to its possessor.” “If thou art powerful, command only to direct.” “To be absolute is to run into evil.” “The gentle man penetrates all obstacles.” “Teach the man of great position that one may even do him honour.” “If thou hast become great who once was small, and rich after having been poor, grow not hard of heart because of thy prosperity. Thou hast only become the steward of the good things of God.”
Ptah was the father of Atum-Ra, therefore an earlier god. Memphis was an older foundation than On, the northern Annu. And the wisdom of Ptah-Iu was indefinitely older than the writings of the Aiu or Jews which had been preserved in the library at On and brought forth thence by Osarsiph as the basis of the Pentateuch. But the sayings of Jesus or logia of the Lord did not come to an end with the collection called the Wisdom of Jesus, that was translated “when Euergetes was king,” and ascribed to two of the name of Jesus, with Sirach interposed between. The first gospel of the Christians began with a collection of the Sayings of Jesus, fatuously supposed to have been an historic teacher of that name. Every sect had its collection of the sayings that were uttered as the word of God
by the Word in person, who was Horus in the Osirian religion, or Iu, the Egyptian Jesus, to whom the books of wisdom were attributed thrice over, once as the son of Ptah, once as the son of Atum-Ra, and once as the son of Ieou in the Pistis Sophia. The veil is being torn away from the eyes of those who were unable or unwilling to see through it, and dead Egypt speaks once more with a living tongue. Explorers are just beginning to find some missing links betwixt the Ritual and those “gospels” that were canonized at last which were needed to complete the argument concerning the Egyptian origin of the Christian legend herein presented, and to demonstrate beyond doubt that the historic rendering of the mythos does but contain an exoteric version of the esoteric wisdom. Only the other day a loose leaf was discovered in the rubbish-heaps of Oxyrhynchus which had belonged to some unknown collection of the sayings or logia of “the Lord,” who was not Jesus, a Jew in Palestine, but Jesus or Iu-em-hetep, a god of the Jews in Egypt (Sayings of our Lord, Grenfell and Hunt). It was at Memphis, we suggest, the book of wisdom, known to later times as Jewish, originated as the wisdom of Ptah, whose manifestor was Iu the coming son, who was his logos, his word, the teacher of his wisdom and sayer of his sayings. Atum-Ra was born son of Ptah as Iu-em-hetep in his primary form. When raised to the dignity of Ra, Iu-em-hetep, the typical bringer of peace and all good things, was continued as his son. Both Ptah and Atum had the title of Huhi the eternal, and each of them was also a figure of the one supreme god who was both father and son in one person. In the gnostic representation the propator was known to Monogenes alone, who sprang from him. It was also taught by the Egyptian Valentinus that the father produced in his own image without conjunction with the female (Irenæus, Against Heresies, B. I, ch. II, 1, 4, Ante-Nicene Library). The following brief list will serve to give an aperçu of this divine duality in various phases. Huhi the eternal god the father, Iu the ever-coming son; Atum-Ra as father, Nefer-Atum as the son; Osiris the father, Horus the son; Ihuh the eternal father, Iah the messiah or ever-coming son; Jacob-El the father, Joseph-El the son; David the father, Solomon the son; Ihuh the father, Jesus the son (Christian); Ieou the father, Iao the son (Pistis Sophia); Jehovah as the father, Jesus as the son. These are all twofold types of the same great one god in the religion that was established, first at Memphis, with Ptah as Huhi the eternal, the self-existent, lord of everlastingness, “he who is,” or the “I am,” and Iu-em-hetep as his su, sif, or son, continued in the cult of Atum-Ra at On, and brought forth from Egypt as the religion of the Ius or Jews, who were the worshippers of Huhi the eternal and of Iu the ever-coming messianic son, which dual type was also represented by the old lion and the young one, by the bull and the bullock, and by the ass and the foal of an ass. Moreover, it is recorded in the Hebrew legend that the one god of Israel was made known to Moses under two entirely different names. In two passages the name given is “Hy” (Ex. XV. 2 and XVII. 16). Moses says, “Iah is my strength and son.” “This is my God and I will praise him.” The other name is hvhy, rendered Jehovah. Under both names it is the one lord. Under both names the god is celebrated in the Psalms. Then
the name of Iah is dropped altogether, except by Isaiah, who combines the two names under the one title of hy-=hvhy, rendered “Jehovah-Jah,” or the Lord Jehovah (Is. XII. 2). These two names, we repeat, represent the Egyptian names of Iu=Iah for god the ever-coming son, and Huhi=Ihuh the eternal father, who was the one god as Atum-Ra. Thus Isaiah’s Iah-Jehovah combines the names of both the father and the son in the name of Israel’s one god. And now, as the two characters of Huhi (Ihuh) and Iu (Iah) met in one person and the two names were combined in Iah-Ihuh, it appears probable that both the names were blended in one word to form the divine name of Ihuh (or hvhy) in Hebrew, by compounding those of Iu and Huh, thus, Iu-Huh, as a title of the eternal one. Iu would then be represented by the Ï or yod alone, and the final form would be Ihuh, which, with the introduction of the Hebrew letter vav, was extended into Javeh and Jehovah for Jewish and Christian use.
An insuperable difficulty was bequeathed to the later monotheists of Israel in the mystery of a biune being consisting of a father and son who were but one in person. This needed a knowledge of the ancient wisdom to explicate the doctrine. How could the one god be two, or the twain one, to the plain and unsophisticated man? There was no abstract conception of any one god in two persons, or three, or 153 (Rit., ch. 141) as a spiritual entity. The origins are rooted in the phenomena of external nature, and have to be interpreted by means of sign-language and the mythical mode of representation. The Jews had got the father and son, and finally knew not what to do with both. The son was a perpetual difficulty in their writings, which repeated fragments of Egyptian mythos in the old dark sayings without the oral wisdom of the Gnostics, and left a stumbling-block that has remained to trip up all good, dunder-headed Christians. Still the son is present, as the anointed Son of God, the Christ that was, who has been all along mistaken for the Christ that was to be and is not yet, although the reign of the son as Ichthus in Pisces is nearly ended now, and the Pisciculi are gasping for breath like little fishes out of water. Jewish theologians did their utmost to suppress the sonship of the godhead, as well as to get rid of the motherhood. This was preparatory to the rejection of the sonship altogether when presented in the scheme of “historic” Christianity. They pursued their messianic phantom to the verge of the quagmire, but drew back in time to escape. They left it for the Christians to take the final fatal plunge into the bog in which they have wallowed, always sinking, ever since; and if the Jews did but know it, the writings called Jewish have wrought an appalling avengement on their ignorant persecutors, who are still proving themselves to be Christians, as in Russia, by ignominiously mutilating and pitilessly massacring the Jews. Their god, like the Mohammedan deity, was to be a father who never had a son. To put it in Egyptian terms, they held to their one god Ihuh the eternal, as the fixed and everlasting fact, and dropped the Iu or ever-becoming son, together with the modus operandi of becoming, whether astronomical or eschatological, and so they parted company with the followers of Ptah-Iu and of Atum-Iu. Or rather the son was turned into the subject of prophecy, whose
ultimate coming was supposed to be fulfilled in the cult of Christianity. Thus the Jews are worshippers of the father, whereas the Christians substituted the son. These are two branches of the original religion in which the one god connoted the father and the son, who was Huhi or Ihuh the eternal, with Iu as the ever-coming cyclical manifestor for the father in the sphere of time.
Celsus casts it up against Moses, as leader of the Israelites, that he deceived them with his magical tricks, and misled them into the belief that there was but one god (Origen, Contra Celsum, ch. 23). For good or evil, however, the one god was established on the ground herein set forth, and this as hvhy the Hebrew god, the eternal, self-existent, supreme one, whose other name is Hy, Iah, Iao, or Iu. These are the two lords who constitute the one god in the Hebrew version of the Egyptian doctrine. In destroying the cities of the plain it is said, “The Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven” (Gen. XIX. 24, 25), which is identical with Horus the lord as Har-Tema, the son who avenges his father Osiris in the great judgment and destruction of the condemned, who are overwhelmed in the cities of the plain because the occurrence is on the level at the place of equilibrium in the equinox of which there was a yearly representation in the mysteries of Amenta. There may be an attempt at times to conceal the dual personality in the phraseology, as when the Psalmist says, “God standeth in the congregation of gods,” “He judgeth among the gods” (Ps. LXXXII. 1). But the writer lets in a flood of polytheism at the same time that he acknowledges the duality of Ihuh. In one psalm the anointed son is begotten (Ps. II); in another he is appointed (Ps. LXXXIX) as the holy one of Israel. In the latter instance it is David who is made the anointed son. Isaiah proclaims the god of Israel to be “the everlasting father” or father of eternity at the same time that he is the “prince of peace” who was the ever-coming son as Horus or Iu-em-hetep, the prince of eternity in the astronomical mythos of Egypt and the prince of peace in the eschatology. “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called alp” (rendered wonderful), “councillor, mighty God, the father of eternity, prince of peace” (Is. IX. 6, 7). This song, uplifted so majestically by the music of Handel, might have been sung at On, or Memphis, many thousand years ago, as regards the subject-matter, which is purely Egyptian. Atum was the father of eternity, and Iu-em-hetep, the su or son, was the prince of peace, and these two were one. Probably the Hebrew word alp (pehla) represents the Egyptian pera or pela=to appear, show a great sight, in relation to the messianic manifestor, who was the messu or child, the prince of peace, and who “bore the government upon his shoulder” in a symbolical way peculiarly Egyptian. Atum, in his dual character of father and son, is he who says, “I am he that closeth and he that openeth, and I am but one” (Rit., ch. 17).
This doctrine of divine duality was based upon the Egyptian Pharaoh as the father and the repa or heir-apparent as the son—the ever-coming king in the person of the prince who was always born to be a king. The father was king of Egypt, the son was the prince of
Ethiopia, which was the birthplace of an earlier time and remained the typical birthplace of the young prince of eternity for all time. The messu was the root of the Messiah by nature and by name. The prince of Ethiopia is the messu whence the Messiah is Iu the son, messu or messu-iahu—that is, Iahu as the son or repa. In the mythical representation Horus was reborn each year as the messu, and the rebirth was celebrated by the festival called the Messiu. The repa symbolized the succession of Ra, or the sun, to himself, in a mode of showing that the god or the king never died, but continued for ever by transformation of the father into the son. The transformation was also seen in the old moon changing into the new, and the sun that set symbolically rendered as the old beetle that went underground to hatch its seed and die, to issue forth again renewed in its young. The Pharaoh transformed into his own son and manifestor as the repa, Atum into Iu-em-hetep, Osiris into Horus, Jacob into Joseph, and Ihuh into the Messiah. This transformation occurred in natural phenomena periodically, therefore at the end of some particular cycle of time which was always indefinite for those who knew not the method of measurement astronomically.
The Lord and his anointed as father and son had been already represented at Memphis by Ptah and Iu-em-hetep, at On by Atum and Nefer-Atum, at Abydos by Osiris and Horus of the resurrection. The lord’s anointed was the second Horus, Horus the adult, Horus who rose again in spirit after death to manifest the glory of the father with the holy oil upon his shining face which made him the anointed. The Lord’s anointed, called the Messiah in Hebrew, the Kristos in Greek, and Chrestus in Latin, is the Messu in Egyptian. Messu signifies the son, the child, or heir-apparent, the prince of Ethiopia. As human he was the repa, son of the Pharaoh. As divine he is the son of god. Messu is also an Egyptian word signifying the anointed and to be anointed. The Lord and his anointed are frequently mentioned in the Hebrew writings. These are the father and son, equivalent to Osiris and Horus his son; also to Ptah and Iu the prince of peace. “The Lord shalt exalt the horn of his anointed” (I Samuel II. 10). “Here I am: witness against me before the Lord and before his anointed” (I Samuel XII. 3). “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his anointed” (I Ps. II. 2). “The Lord showeth loving-kindness to his anointed” (Ps. XVIII. 50). “The Lord saveth his anointed; he will answer him from his holy heaven” (Ps. XX. 6). “He is a stronghold of salvation to his anointed” (Ps. XXVIII. 8). “Behold our shield O God, and look upon the face of thine anointed” (Ps. LXXXIV. 9). “Thine enemies have reproached the footsteps of thine anointed” (Ps. LXXXIX. 51), who was the witness and the messenger that showed the way of the Lord in the heavens, in the earth, in the waters and in the nethermost depths of Sheol. The “anointed of the Lord” was the very breath of their nostrils to them who had said, “Under his shadow we shall live among nations” (Lam. IV. 20). “The Lord goes forth for the victory with his anointed” (Hab. III. 13). This duality of Ihuh and the Messiah or reborn son was the source of a great dilemma to the Jews, and the cause of a conflict betwixt their monotheism and the Messiahship. They knew of a
doctrine concerning the Messiah, but were afraid of the astronomical fulfilment being mistaken for the humanly historical, and thus insisted all the more upon the divine unity in its simplicity. In the Ritual, Horus is described as the son who converses with the father. He is thus addressed, “O son who conversest with thy father!” (ch. 32). This character is ascribed to David as the divine son in the Psalms, he who declares, “The Lord said unto me, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee” (Ps. II. 7). In the same psalm the Lord is said to have begotten his anointed son and set him as the king upon his holy hill in Zion. This is the son as the divine avenger of whom it is said, “Kiss the son, lest he be angry and ye perish by the way, for his wrath will soon be kindled.” The father says to his son, “Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel” (Ps. II. 7, 8, 9). In the Ritual (chs. 17 and 175), this avenger is the son who “cometh red with wrath as the heir of Osiris seated upon the throne of the dweller in the lake of twofold fire.” This is Horus who says to his father after the periodic battle with the evil powers, “I, thy son Horus, come to thee.” “I have avenged thee. I have overthrown thy foes. I have established all those who were of thy substance upon the earth for ever.” That is when he returns to the father in heaven with his work accomplished on the earth and in Amenta. In the time of Isaiah and of the Hebrew psalmist the type of the son, the chosen one, the servant who became the beloved of the Lord, was extant as a man, not merely as the lamb or the branch. It is the same type in the gospels, which were written with reference all through to the figure that was pre-extant (Ps. II. 7, 12; Is. XLII. 1; Matt. III. 1 to 3). Moreover, the same things were said of that type in the earlier as in the later time. He was equally the crucified or suffering Messiah; gall was given to him for meat, and vinegar for drink (Ps. LXIX. 21). He was bound in his hands and feet; his garments were parted amongst his spoilers, who cast lots for his vesture (Ps. XXII. 18). All that was fabled to have been historically acted at a later period had been already fulfilled with non-historical significance. It is the same also with the character of John the Baptist as with Jesus in the gospels. In defiance of the fact that the event is contemporary with or had occurred previously in the prophetic writings, the Christian world supposes that the so-called prophecies simply refer to a Messiah who is to come in a “personal and historical character.” Thus it is assumed that the “prophecy of Isaiah, “The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of the Lord! Make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted and every mountain and hill shall be made low, when the uneven shall be made level, and the rough places a plain, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed” (Is. XL. 3-5; Matt. III. 3); it is assumed that this was historically fulfilled when the passage is quoted in the gospel according to Matthew and applied to John the Baptist, whereas the alleged history in the New Testament is based upon the supposed fulfilment of this prophecy in the Old. Yet it is only a fragment repeated from the Egyptian mythos, in which Anup was the crier in the wilderness and
the guide in the ways of darkness through which the road was made from equinox to equinox in the desert of the under-world. When reduced to their proper level, the elevation of the valley and the lowering of the mountain are but another mode of describing the equinoxes. Anup was the precursor, the forerunner, the prophet of Horus the Lord who came in glory, and the preparer of his way. As such he appears in the opening chapter of the Ritual, where we read, “O openers of roads! O guides of paths to the soul made in the abode of Osiris (the house of heaven with thirty-six gates), open ye the roads! Level ye the paths of the Osiris.” That is, bring the lofty low in process of levelling or making the road equal in the mount of the equinox at the coming of Horus the lord. Horus as lord of the two horizons was Har-Makhu, lord of the equinoctial level. At the time of the Easter equinox the path was made level, the valley exalted, and the mountain brought low at the coming of Har-Makhu who revealed the glory of the lord.
If the Jews had only held on to the sonship of Iu, the su or sif, they might have spoiled the market for the spurious wares of the “historic” Saviour, and saved the world from wars innumerable, and from countless broken hearts and immeasurable mental misery. But they let go the sonship of Hy with the growth of their monolatry. They could not substitute the “historic” sonship; they had lost touch with Egypt, and the wisdom that might have set them right was no longer available against the Christian misconstruction. They failed to fight the battle of the gnostics, and retired from the conflict dour and dumb; strong and firm enough to suffer the blind and brutal Juden-Hetze of all these centuries, but powerless to bring forward their natural allies the Egyptian reserves, and helpless to conclude a treaty or enforce a truce. The Jews have suffered and been damned along the line of 1,800 years on account of the false belief which they unwittingly helped to foster; and if they should still suffer slinkingly for gross gains instead of turning round and rending their persecutors and helping us to win the battle for universal freedom, when once the truth is made known to them, they will, if such a fate were possible, be deserving of eternal damnation in the Christian hell. The rootage of matters like these lies out of sight, and is not to be bottomed in the Hebrew scriptures, but such passages as those quoted show the existence of a god the father and a god the son. Not a son who is to be begotten at some future period by miraculous interposition of divine power playing pranks with human nature in a female form. The anointed son was then begotten and already extant. It was he who suffered like Horus in one character, and who came like Horus in the other as the arm-lifter of the lord, the avenger red with wrath, to rule with a rod of iron, not on this earth but in the earth of eternity, the Sheol of the Psalms. And on account of this language in the Cursing Psalms, as they have been called, the militant Christians have claimed a divine sanction for all their brutality in going forth with fire and sword to blast the face of this fair earth and slay the utterly astonished natives of other lands who would not or could not accept a doctrine so damnable as a revelation emanating from the most high God. The Psalmist celebrates this son of God, his begettal, his advent, but offers no real clue to the nature of the sonship; and the Christians, knowing