Sunday, May 12, 2024

Mexico supposedly had Twelve Apostles as well

by Damien F. Mackey “These orders were interspersed with the expectations of conduct of the Franciscan Twelve, including expectations of the hardships and possible death in serving in such a role”. Wikipedia Dr. Taylor Marshall has valiantly tried to defend the traditional historicity of the Book of Tobit, “Defending the Book of Tobit as History”: https://taylormarshall.com/2012/03/defending-the-book-of-tobit-as-history.html However, I, in my article: Holy Tobit immersed in history (8) Holy Tobit immersed in history | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu made it quite apparent that I was not impressed with his effort: A similarly lengthy tradition of historicity is associated with the Book of Tobit. Dr. Taylor Marshall points this out in his hopeful “Defending the Book of Tobit as History”, while showing himself to be somewhat clueless about the neo-Assyrian kings themselves: Defending the Book of Tobit as History - Taylor Marshall Again, Dr. Taylor Marshall has weighed into the subject of: 12 Apostles of New Spain by Dr Taylor Marshall The 12 Apostles of New Spain were 12 Franciscan missionaries who arrived in the newly founded Viceroyalty of New Spain in May 1524, with the goal of evangelizing the indigenous population to the Christian faith. The group consisted of: 1. Martín de Valencia (their leader) 2. Francisco de Soto, 3. Martín de Jesús, 4. Juan Juárez, 5. Antonio de Ciudad Rodrigo, 6. Toribio de Benavente Motolinia, 7. García de Cisneros, 8. Luis de Fuensalida, 9. Juan de Ribas, 10. Francisco Jiménez, 11. Andrés de Córdoba, and 12. Juan de Palos Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared in 1531. Holy Apostles of New Spain, pray for us! And, again, I must query the historicity of it, especially in light of my articles on Meso-America. For example: Alexander the Great and Hernán Cortés https://www.academia.edu/62585521/Alexander_the_Great_and_Hern%C3%A1n_Cort%C3%A9s In my opinion, the whole thing smacks far too much of the commissioning of the original Twelve Apostles, albeit with entirely different names, and catapulted into a different historico-geographical environment. A parallel case, to my way of thinking, would be the legendary foundation of the original Knights Templar in a medieval Franco-Jerusalem context. On this, see e.g. my article: Origins of the Knights Templar (9) Origins of the Knights Templar | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Here are some of the descriptions of Mexico’s Twelve Apostles (Wikipedia) that may suggest the original Twelve: Twelve Apostles of Mexico From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia …. Six of the First Twelve, mural in the ex-convento of Huexotzinco. Motolinia is depicted fourth from the left The Twelve Apostles of Mexico, the Franciscan Twelve, or the Twelve Apostles of New Spain, were a group of twelve Franciscan missionaries who arrived in the newly-founded Viceroyalty of New Spain on May 13 or 14, 1524 and reached Mexico City on June 17 or 18,[1] with the goal of converting its indigenous population to Christianity. Conqueror Hernán Cortés had requested friars of the Franciscan and Dominican Orders to evangelize the Indians. Despite the small number, it had religious significance and also marked the beginning of the systematic evangelization of the Indians in New Spain.[1] Franciscan Fray Pedro de Gante had already begun the evangelization and instruction of natives in New Spain since 1523.[2] Fray Juan Galpión had offered himself as a missionary but could not go himself; he organized the Twelve Franciscans with Fray Martín de Valencia as its head.[3] The group consisted of: • Fray Martín de Valencia (their leader) • Fray Francisco de Soto • Fray Martín de Coruña (also known as Fray Martín de Jesǘs) • Fray Juan Juárez • Fray Antonio de Ciudad Rodrigo • Fray Toribio de Benavente Motolinia • García de Cisneros • Fray Luis de Fuensalida • Juan de Ribas • Fray Francisco Jiménez • Fray Andrés de Córdoba, • Fray Juan de Palos.[4] (Juan de Palos, a lay Franciscan, took the place of Fray Bernardino de la Torre, who did not sail with the group. Fray Andrés de Córdoba was also a lay brother.)[5] The most famous of the Twelve was Toribio de Benavente Motolinia, whose extensive writings on the customs of the Nahuas and the challenges of Christian evangelization make his works essential for the history of this key period in Mexican history. …. Missionary orders …. The Franciscan Twelve received holy orders ("obediencia") from their minister general, Francisco De los Angeles, prior to their departure for Mexico.[6] A copy of this obediencia was brought to New Spain when they arrived in 1524.[6] These orders were interspersed with the expectations of conduct of the Franciscan Twelve, including expectations of the hardships and possible death in serving in such a role.[6] The Franciscan Twelve are described as being similar to the first apostles in their missionary deeds and aspirations.[7] Further conceptualizations of the divine duty of Christian conversion, the palpability of the Devil's force on Earth, and New Spain acting as a battleground between God and the Devil also make an appearance in these orders.[6][7] Natives are depicted as entirely ignorant to this war for their souls, and thus, De los Angeles stresses the natives' need for the conversion the Franciscan Twelve offer.[6] Cortés and the Arrival of the Franciscans - Ozumba Areas of evangelization …. The first evangelization began in 1500 on Santo Domingo, where the Franciscan mission was officially established.[8] The Twelve Apostles of New Spain arrived at Mexico in 1524, greeted by the Aztec conqueror's Hernán Cortés.[9] Evangelization thus began in the Valley of Mexico and the Valley of Puebla. They chose these areas as their first foundations due to them being important indigenous settlements. In the Valley of Puebla, Tlaxcala and Huejotzinco, both allies of the Spaniards in the conquest of the Mexica, were chosen.[10] In the Valley of Mexico, Texcoco, another ally of the Spaniards and formerly a member of the Aztec Triple Alliance was an initial site, as well as Churubusco.[10] Initial reception of the Twelve …. The Twelve were originally received in the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan in 1524.[11] The lords and holy men of the Aztec empire accepted the Spaniards' arrival, and even accepted the Spaniards and their king as rulers.[11] However, the Aztec leaders took issue with the Spaniards' religious doctrines that were being pressed upon them.[11] They accepted many of the ideas the Spaniards believed in, except the statement the Franciscan friars made that the Aztecs worshipped false gods. [11] The Aztec leaders expressed that their tradition of ancestral worship and supplication to their gods would not be easily abandoned.[11] In a subtle political maneuver, the Aztecs leaders asserted that while they would never incite a rebellion or foster unrest, the same could not be said about the rest of the population.[11] Additional barriers to conversion …. The Franciscan Twelve faced a considerable hurdle to their evangelization efforts: the numerous native languages. In addition, the fact that natives lived quite dispersed outside of urban centers posed a difficulty. Such barriers were later addressed through the creation of "pueblos de indios", also known as "reducciones indígenas": the conglomeration of natives into towns to ease evangelization. Institutions of evangelization …. Schools …. The education of natives - especially their children - was a crucial practice in relation to their evangelization.[12] Thus, schools became institutions of power and control.[12] Following Cortés and his successful military conquests in the Valley of Mexico, Texcoco was the location of school established by three Franciscans, one of which was Pedro de Gante.[12] In 1524, the Franciscan Twelve followed de Gante's example, establishing schools in Tlatelolco-Mexico City, Tlaxcala, and Huejotzingo, to name a few.[12] Pueblos de Indios …. The aforementioned pueblos de indios, also known as "reducciones indígenas", were methods used to centralize native living structures.[13] Pueblos were promoted by the Spanish authorities in the second half of the 16th century, starting with a royal decree in 1548.[13] They were devised not only to more easily instruct the population in Christianity and evangelize, but in order to carry out a more efficient collection of taxes.[13] Mission churches (Conventos) …. The Franciscan Twelve initiated the sociopolitical tool of the "Mission church", which accordingly benefitted both the Roman Catholic Church and Spanish Crown (often inextricably linked in early Spanish-American relations).[8] This began after Pope Paul III's Sublimis Deus decree in 1537 that native persons were not "savages" and instead human beings with souls and possessing the intellectual capability of understanding - and thus adopting the beliefs of - Christianity; this ended the mass subjection of native populations to enslavement, though not eliminating this practice in entirety.[14][15] Thus, religious orders sent their piety to New Spain in droves particularly between the years of 1523 to 1580.[16] Among these religious orders were such orders as the Dominicans, the Franciscans, Augustinians, and the Jesuits.[15] These orders were employed to convert the native inhabitants and thus expand the hold of Christianity.[17] To do so, friars built mission churches (conventos in Spanish) in indigenous communities.[15] These churches acted as the home base of the religious militia consisting of these orders' friars, and served to not only empower the Church through acting as bases of conversion, but also facilitated the colonization of New Spain without the use of a standing army.[16] Transformative impact and precedent …. The Franciscan Twelve arriving in New Spain was the beginning of a sweeping wave of evangelization that would come to encompass a large swath of indigenous city-states.[18] The Franciscan Twelve thus galvanized a new era of missionary work.[19] From 1524-1534, Dominicans and Augustinians would join the "spiritual conquest".[20] Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo, a 16th century historian, remarked of this phenomenon that "...these lands are flooded with friars; but none are greying, all being less than thirty years old. I pray to God that they are capable of serving Him."[21] Despite other religious orders being present and emphasizing conversion, the Franciscans were unique in that they believed their evangelization efforts, in addition to the creation of a "primitive apostolic church" in New Spain would result in the second coming of Christ.[20] Accordingly, this new wave of missionaries further established the Roman Catholic Church as a figurehead within New Spain and indigenous livelihood.[19] Accordingly, the system of patronato real (royal patronage) allowed for the unprecedented privilege of the Spanish Crown in Church affairs in exchange for Spain's funding of missionary ventures abroad.[22] Through this system, the Spanish Crown and Roman Catholic Church grew in tandem economically, geographically, and politically, and created a strong foundation for the future of Spanish colonization, conversion, and capitalization.

Origins of the Knights Templar

by Damien F. Mackey Part One: C12th AD or time of the Apostles? Acts 19:1-7 describes a group of twelve disciples met by St. Paul in Corinth who had not yet evolved from John to Jesus Christ (and the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete) as had the Apostles. Whilst there can be differing versions and variants, a typical account of the beginnings of the Knights Templar will go something like what we read here in this 2016 article: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-important-events/secrets-knights-templar-knights-john-baptist-005088 Secrets of the Knights Templar: The Knights of John the Baptist Soon after the Knights Templar founded their order in the Holy Land in 1118 AD they assimilated into a very ancient gnostic tradition and lineage known as the Johannite Church, which had been founded by St. John the Baptist more than a thousand years previously. The ruling patriarch of this ancient tradition when the Templar Order first formed was Theoclete. The Johannites and St. John the Baptist Theoclete met the first Templar grandmaster, Hughes de Payens and then passed the mantle of his Johannite authority to him. Hughes de Payens thus became John #70 in a long line of gnostic Johannites (the “Johns”) that had begun with John the Baptist and included: Jesus, John the Apostle, and Mary Magdalene. John was not just a name, but also an honorific title meaning “He of Gnostic Power and Wisdom.” It is related to the Sanskrit Jnana (pronounced Yana), meaning “Gnosis.” …. [End of quote] This, the “Johns”, reminds me of an English taxi driver whom I encountered at the time of my arrival in Sydney (Australia) - from Hobart via the US, Canada and Britain - in the late 70’s, who had the British quirk (at least) in those days of calling every male, “John”, including me. Immediately after telling me, “John”, what a cosmopolitan and welcoming city Sydney was, he had his head out the window loudly abusing a passing driver. Speaking of loose heads, St. John the Baptist, referred to above, lost his (Matthew 14:10-11) - had to, in fact, according to some theologians, because the great holy man, John the Baptist, was “the head of the Old Testament”. Symbolically, then, it was necessary for this “head” to be removed in order to make way for the New Testament (Matthew 11:11): ‘Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he’. John the Baptist, the purpose of whose whole self-effacing life was to prepare the way for ‘the One who was to come’ (Luke 7:19), would have been horrified, would have rolled in his grave, had he learned that that ‘One’ was actually subservient to himself. Once Jesus had arrived, John’s career was ‘complete’ (John 3:29): ‘The friend who attends the Bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the Bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete’. Some sects, though, e.g. the Gnostic-like Mandaeans, seem to have perpetuated a mistaken view that John the Baptist, not Jesus, was the true Messiah. There appears to be much of this sort of mentality, too, in accounts of the supposedly “Johannite” Templars. Acts 19:1-7 describes a group of twelve disciples met by St. Paul in Corinth who had not yet evolved from John to Jesus Christ (and to the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete) as had the Apostles: While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ They answered, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit’. So Paul asked, ‘Then what baptism did you receive?’ ‘John’s baptism’, they replied. Paul said, ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Jesus’. On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all. This is already very much like the first Knights Templar of tradition: a group of pious men, followers of the Baptist, who, like Hugh (Hughes) de Payens and his first band of holy men, had an encounter with a ‘Theoclete’ (= God-Holy Spirit). Might it be even more than this? Might this ‘Theoclete’ event, the encounter with the so-called Hugh de Payens, have actually occurred in the time of the Apostles, and not in a supposed 1118 AD? It is my purpose here to explore that unconventional idea. Part Two: Hugh de Payen’s historical obscurity The incident of the founding of the Knights Templar, the encounter between Theoclete and Hugh de Payens, is simply a later appropriation (a European one) of the entrustment of the Church, by Jesus Christ himself, to Saint Peter, who was formerly a follower of St. John the Baptist. In other words, Theoclete, described as the “living Christ”, is Jesus (and/or the Holy Trinity), and Hugh de Payens represents Saint Peter, his close friend, André de Montbard, representing Andrew, Peter’s brother, with the other early Templars being the band of Apostles. Some of the words (speeches) of Hugh de Payens can be found to match those of Saint Peter. At this stage, though, I can find no relationship between their actual names. But Hugh himself is historically problematical, anyway: A Huge Pain trying to find a history of Hugues de Payens https://www.academia.edu/101036560/A_Huge_Pain_trying_to_find_a_history_of_Hugues_de_Payens His historical obscurity reminds me of what I have found to have been the case with the so-called ‘Ionian’ (Greek) philosophers, about some of whose lives we know virtually nothing, with little or no extant writings, leading me to conclude firmly that these were non-historical beings, often biblically-based (composite) characters. See e.g. my article: Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy (9) Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu At the site: https://erenow.net/postclassical/the-real-history-behind-the-templars/3.php we read just how obscure is this character Hugh (or Hughes) de Payens (or Payns), he also being known as “Hugo de Peanz”, or “Hugo de Pedans”, or “Hugonis de Peans”, or even “Hugh de Paganis”. (My emphasis added to following): Home Post-classical history History Behind the Templars Page 3 CHAPTER TWO Hugh de Payns Amid all the different theories about the beginning of the Templars there is one constant. The founder of the order was a certain Hugh de Payns, knight. Some say he and a few comrades first approached the patriarch of Jerusalem, asking to live a monastic life in the city. Others report the men went to Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem. Still others suggest that it was Baldwin who asked Hugh and his friends to act as protectors to the many pilgrims coming from the West to Jerusalem. In all of these, the main constant is Hugh. But who was Hugh? Where is Payns? What was his background and who were his family? What could have led him to devote his life to fighting for God? Despite his importance, even in his own day, a contemporary biography of Hugh has never been found. Nor has any medieval writer even mentioned reading one. I find this interesting because it indicates to me the uneasiness people felt about the idea of warrior monks. Other men who founded orders, like Francis of Assisi or Robert of Arbrissel, had biographies written about them immediately after their deaths. The main purpose of this was to have an eyewitness account of their saintliness in case they were suggested for canonization. Of the little that was written about Hugh, nothing was negative, but there .... does not seem to have been any sense that he was in line for sainthood. So how do we find out more about this man who started it all? The first clue we have is from the chronicler William of Tyre. He says that Hugh came from the town of Payns, near Troyes in the county of Champagne. …. William also mentions Hugh’s companion, Godfrey of St. Omer, in Picardy, now Flanders. These two men seem, in William’s eyes, to be cofounders of the Templars, but it was Hugh who became the first Grand Master. This may have been through natural leadership, but it also may have been because Hugh had the right connections. Payns is a small town in France, near Troyes, the seat of the counts of Champagne. It is situated in a fertile farmland that even then had a reputation for its wine. It’s not known when Hugh was born, or who his parents were. The first mention of him in the records is from about 1085-1090, when a “Hugo de Pedano, Montiniaci dominus,” or Hugh of Payns, lord of Montigny, witnessed a charter in which Hugh, count of Champagne, donated land to the abbey of Molesme. …. In order to be a witness, our Hugh had to have been at least sixteen. So he was probably born around 1070. Over the next few years, four more charters of the count are witnessed by a “Hugo de Peanz” or “Hugo de Pedans.” Actually, the place name is spelled slightly differently each time it appears. …. It is also spelled “Hughes.” Spelling was much more of a creative art back then. However, it’s fairly certain that these are all the same man. These show that Hugh was part of the court of the count of Champagne, perhaps even related to him. The last of these charters in Champagne is from 1113. The next time we find the name Hugh de Payns, it is in 1120 in Jerusalem. …. So now we have confirmation of the story that Hugh was in Jerusalem in 1119-1120 to found the Templars outside of later histories. However, it is not until five years later that Hugh witnesses a charter in which he lists himself as “Master of the Knights Templar.” …. In between, he is witness to a donation made in 1123 by Garamond, patriarch of Jerusalem, to the abbey of Santa Maria de Josaphat. Here Hugh is listed only by the name “Hugonis de Peans.” There is no mention of the Templars and Hugh is near the end of the list of witnesses, showing that he was not one of the most important people present. …. How did Hugh get to Jerusalem? What happened in those five years between witnessing a charter as a layman and becoming Master of the Templars? We can guess, but unless more information appears, we can’t know for certain. The most likely reason for Hugh to have gone to the Holy Land was in the company of Count Hugh. The count made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, his second, in 1114. …. There is no list of his companions, but it would fit that Hugh de Payns would have been in his company. Hugh was already among those at court often enough to be a witness to the count’s donations and therefore one of his liege men. But he must have been released from his obligation to his lord for, when Count Hugh returned home, Hugh de Payns remained in Jerusalem. Why? Again, Hugh hasn’t left anything to tell us. Was it as penance for his sins? Most pilgrimages were intended as a quest for divine forgiveness. Many people have insisted that knights only went to the Holy Land for wealth, either in land or goods looted from those they conquered. But in Hugh’s case, once he decided to remain in Jerusalem he resolved to live the life of a monk, owning nothing. It is even more surprising because Hugh apparently left a wife and at least one young child behind. His wife was named Elizabeth. She was probably from the family of the lords of Chappes, land quite close to Payns. …. Their son, Thibaud, became abbot of the monastery of La Colombe….. Hugh may have had two other children, Guibuin and Isabelle, but I don’t find the evidence for them completely convincing. …. However, after founding the commandery, it appears that Hugh donated nothing more to it. He returned to Jerusalem, probably around 1130, and died in 1136. May 24 is the traditional date. The records we have from the early twelfth century give no more information on Hugh de Payns. Of course, much has been lost over the years. Some of the Templar records in Europe were destroyed after the dissolution of the order at the Council of Vienne. This doesn’t seem to have been because the information was secret or heretical, simply that it was no longer needed and the parchment could be scraped and reused. The main Templar archives, which might have had more information on Hugh, were not in Europe, however, but in Jerusalem. They were moved to Acre and then Cyprus, where they were in 1312. War and conquest ensured that anything left was scattered or destroyed. Perhaps there was once a biography of sorts of Hugh de Payns. It seems to me that someone would have wanted to tell the world more about him. What we can deduce from his actions is that he must have been a strong-willed man, very devout and with the ability to convince others to see and follow his vision. He does not seem to have been particularly well educated. Nothing in his life or background would indicate that he was involved in anything of a mystical nature, nor that he founded the Templars to protect some newly discovered treasure or secret, as modern myths state. Hugh de Payns was most likely a deeply devout layman who wanted to serve God by protecting His pilgrims and His land. Hugh used his wealth, such as it was, and his family and social connections to make this possible. Nothing more. But, before that, some background will be needed. [End of quote] What we find in this mix is that there is no known contemporary biography of Hugh de Payens. Nor did any medieval writers ever mention having read one. Both Hugh’s place of birth and his parentage are unknown. While the above would suggest that he was French, he is variously known as Ugo of Nocera de' Pagani in Campania, southern Italy. There is a lack of evidence for the supposed two children he is thought to have fathered. All records appear to have been either lost or destroyed. This all conspires to make of Hugh de Payens, in historical terms, a very shadowy figure indeed. Legends about Hugh fit well the character of Saint Peter. For example: … he resolved to live the life of a monk, owning nothing. … he must have been a strong-willed man, very devout and with the ability to convince others to see and follow his vision. He does not seem to have been particularly well educated. Nothing in his life or background would indicate that he was involved in anything of a mystical nature, nor that he founded the Templars to protect some newly discovered treasure or secret, as modern myths state. Hugh de Payns was most likely a deeply devout layman who wanted to serve God …. Certainly, Peter bore a sword - though he was not a Knight - and he was prepared to use it (John 18:10). And so we have: “The Falchion or Malchus, the rarest medieval sword”. https://br.pinterest.com/pin/753860425100347974/ The extraordinary notion that the Knights Templar arose “to save souls … by protecting pilgrims travelling the Holy Land” (https://theconversation.com/knights-templar-still-loved-by-conspiracy-theorists-900-years-on-128582), may be due to the Apostles protecting pilgrim souls in the Holy Land by showing them “the Way”, first announced by the prophet Isaiah, but pointing to, appropriately, John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1-3): In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near’. This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the Way for the Lord, make straight paths for him’.” When Jesus came, He identified himself as this ‘Way” (John 14:6): ‘I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’. Theoclete ‘the living Christ’ According to the traditional view: https://warsoftherosoes.blogspot.com/2017/12/johannite-order.html "At the time of Hugh de Payers, Theocletes was the living "Christ" of the Johannites. He communicated to the founders of the Temple the ideas of a sovereign priesthood of dedicated and initiated men united for the purpose of overthrowing the bishops of Rome and the establishment of universal civil liberty. The secret object of the Johannites was the restoration of the esoteric tradition and the gathering of mankind under the one eternal religion of the world. " - Orders of the Quest, The Holy Grail (Adept Series) by Manly P. Hall pg 31 This is all later legend. Returning to the 2016 article, we read: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-important-events/secrets-knights-templar-knights-john-baptist-005088 The acquisition of the Johannite Church by the Knights Templar was later alluded to in Isis Unveiled by the nineteenth century esotericist Madam Blavatsky. While claiming to have learned it from ancient Kabbalistic records, Blavatsky stated: “The true version of the history of Jesus and early Christianity was supposedly imparted to Hughes de Payens, by the Grand-Pontiff of the Order of the Temple [the Johannite sect], one named Theoclete, after which it was learned by some Knights in Palestine, from the higher and more intellectual members of the St. John sect, who were initiated into its mysteries. Freedom of intellectual thought and the restoration of one universal [Gnostic] religion was their secret object. Sworn to the vow of obedience, poverty, and chastity, they were at first the true Knights of John the Baptist, crying in the wilderness and living on wild honey and locusts. Such is the tradition and the true Kabbalistic version.” My comment: Whilst “Theoclete”, Jesus Christ, “the Truth”, did impart the true knowledge to his ‘knights’ (his Apostles) in Palestine, who were previously followers of St. John, the gnostic religion and Johannism of the Knights Templar, with which they have become associated, was a later devolution, as some of the early Christians fell away into apostasy and wrong thinking. Blavatsky’s history was echoed by no lesser authority than Pope Pius IX, the nineteenth century pope, who made a public statement regarding the Templars and the beginning of the Johannite “heresy” in his Allocution of Pio Nono against the Free Masons: The Johannites ascribed to Saint John the foundation of their Secret Church, and the Grand Pontiffs of the Sect assumed the title of Christos, Anointed or Consecrated, and claimed to have succeeded one another from Saint John by an uninterrupted succession of pontifical powers. He who, at the period of the foundation of the Order of the Temple, claimed these imaginary prerogatives was named Theoclete; he knew Hughes de Payens, he initiated him into the Mysteries and hopes of his pretended church; he seduced him by the notions of Sovereign Priesthood and Supreme royalty, and finally designated him as his successor.” Two Doctrines The Heretical Johannite Teachings Upon receipt of the Johannite lineage, Hughes de Payens and his Knights Templar received documents and scrolls that revealed many mysteries that had been lost, hidden, or destroyed because of their heretical content. Some of the documents revealed that John the Baptist had been born within the Essene sect of the Nasoreans or Nazarenes, which was created when an ancient Gnostic sect from the East, the baptizing Mandeans, arrived in the Holy Land and united with the Essenes. Mackey’s comment: A degree of interconnection between John the Baptist and the Essenes is certain - though it would not have been favourable: The “Essenes” in the Bible (9) The “Essenes” in the Bible | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Mandeans apparently continued the Johannine legacy, but without the requisite conversion to Jesus Christ that John the Baptist had intended for his followers. For more on the Templars, see e.g. my article: Book of Esther key to Knights Templar and 1307 AD (9) Book of Esther key to Knights Templar and 1307 AD | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Parallel ancient Egyptian and Meso-America culture

by Damien F. Mackey “Formal religious practice centered around the pharaohs (Egypt) or kings (Mesoamerica). In both religions the god of the sun was widely favored. For example Ra in Egypt and Huitzilopotchli (also god of war) by the Aztecs”. Raymond Meester Charles William Johnson has written (1990) this fascinating article: Linguistic Correspondence: Nahuatl and Ancient Egyptian http://www.earthmatrix.com/linguistic/nahuatl.htm In our more detailed analyses of the possible correspondence among words of the ancient Egyptian language and nahuatl and maya, we have seen that some word-concepts are almost exactly the same in phonetic values. Furthermore, the maya glyphs and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs share extremely common designs in similar/same word-concepts. Today, the idea of linguistic correspondence among the Indo-European languages is a widespread fact. From the still unknown Indo-European mother language it is thought came Sanskrit (and the contemporary languages of Pakistan and India); Persian; and Greek, Latin (and many contemporary European languages). The correspondence of similar/same words among the Latin languages is quite visible, with Spanish words, for example, resembling those of French, Italian and Portuguese. English resembles the Teutonic ones, such as, German, Dutch and the Scandinavian languages. On the other hand, no apparent linguistic correspondence has been observed between ancient Egyptian and languages such as nahuatl or maya, at least to any significant scholarly degree. In the aforementioned essay, we have examined numerous correspondences between word-concepts (and some glyphs) between the ancient Egyptian language and the maya system. The word for day name in maya is ahau, which means place or time in ancient Egyptian. Hom is ballcourt in maya; hem means little ball in ancient Egyptian. Ik means air in maya ; to suspend in the air is ikh in ancient Egyptian. Nichim signifies flower in maya; nehem means bud, flower in ancient Egyptian. And so on, for hundreds of word-concepts that we have examined in the comparison of these two languages. When similar kinds of linguistic correspondences were perceived by William Jones, in the latter part of the eighteenth century, between Sanskrit and other languages, such examples were sufficient to convince scholars that all of those languages probably came from a mother tongue, the Indo-European language. Today, when linguistic correspondence is observed between the ancient Mesoamerican languages and ancient Egyptian, scholars are unwilling or hesitant to accept the idea that the same laws of linguistics may apply. The reason for this is quite simple: there is no historical basis for considering the possibility that the peoples of these different languages had any physical contact among themselves. Physical contact among the peoples who descended from the Indo-European family is established by historical data. There is no obvious historical data to think that the peoples of ancient Mesoamerica and the peoples of ancient Egypt ever met or came into physical contact with one another. Nevertheless, historical data aside for the moment, let us examine some of the obvious examples of linguistic correspondence between nahuatl and the ancient Egyptian language. One very obvious characteristic of the nahuatl language is the extensive use of the letter "l" in most of the words, either as ending to the words or juxtaposed to consonants and vowels within the words. One of the very apparent characteristics of the ancient Egyptian language is the almost total absence of the use of the letter "l" within most of its word-concepts. The letter "l" appears as an ending of words only a handful of times in E.A. Wallis Budge's work, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary. It would appear that this very dissimilar characteristic between these two languages would discourage anyone from considering a comparative analysis of possible linguistic correspondence between these two very apparently distinct idioms. However, as we eliminate the letter "l" from the nahuatl words, the remaining phonemes (listed in brackets) resemble the phonemes and morphemes of ancient Egyptian in many cases. Let us offer only a few of such examples to consider a possible linguistic correspondence between these two fascinating systems of human speech. Nahuatl Egyptian canoe ACAL [aca-] AQAI boat (page 139b from Budge's work cited above) reed ACATL[acat-] AQ AKHAH-T reed (139b) reed (8a) a well AMELLI [ame-i] AMAM place with water in them, wells (121b) house CALLI [ca-i] KA house (783a) serpent ... COATL [coat-] .... ... KHUT ... ... snake (30b) .... ... Linguistic correspondence between nahuatl and ancient Egyptian appears to represent a smoking gun; that is, a trace of evidence that these two peoples did enjoy some kind of contact between themselves ages ago. The fact that we have no real evidence of said contact, or that we have been unable to find any such evidence, should not serve as the basis for denying the possibility of that contact. To attribute all of these similarities in sound, symbol and meaning to mere happenstance seems to be a very unscientific way of resolving an annoying issue. To admit the possibility of physical contact between these cultures has implications for our own interpretation of history and the aspect of technological development of our societies. Such fears are unfounded, given the already obvious fact that our technical know-how could probably not reproduce and build something as majestic as the Great Pyramid. [End of quote] It is probably as a result of the evolutionary view of things - according to which human beings sprang up from lower animal forms, all in their various places - that anthropologists and historians have been unable to make the obvious connections between cultures of similar types, that shared language characteristics, pyramid building technology, and hieroglyphics, to name just a few common features. The wise King Solomon’s (Senenmut’s?) view of human origins was quite different from this, and far more enlightened, I (Damien Mackey) believe (Wisdom 2:23): “For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.” ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Cassaro has brought together a list of some most compelling parallels between ancient Egypt and the Mayan civilisation, which latter I would consider also to have been entirely a BC (and not an AD) phenomenon. I would not accept some of Cassaro’s dates as given below, nor, perhaps, some of his interpretations of symbols. And I would completely throw out any notion of the “independent invention” that he seems to favour: https://grahamhancock.com/cassaror4/ The Ancient Egyptians and Mayans: Ten Unexplained Parallels by Richard Cassaro …. Published 14th April 2019 … A series of mysterious and uncanny architectural, artistic, and religious parallels connect the ancient Maya and Egyptian civilisations. Some of these parallels have been noted and proclaimed by nineteenth century scholars; others have been discovered in the past several decades. Over the past twenty-five years of research into ancient civilisations, I’ve uncovered and explained many such parallels, and have come to believe that these parallels are more than mere coincidences. Such close parallels are enigmatic, even problematic, as the Maya and Egyptians sprung up independently on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean (pre-classic Maya in the Yucatan c. 2000 BC vs. dynastic Egyptians in Africa c. 3150 BC). The two cultures don’t appear to have been in contact, as there are no records of trade, war, or communication between them. How, then, can we explain the similarities? Faced with this enigma, many Victorian-era scholars and archaeologists believed that the Maya and Egyptians were children of the same mother culture—an advanced civilisation so old that memory of its existence has been lost to time. Such theories went out of vogue well over a century ago, but I believe that this rejection was premature, for reasons outlined in my latest book and reviewed briefly here. …. Ever since my first back-to-back research trips to Egypt (1996) and Mexico (1997), I’ve been discovering, researching, and presenting profound cultural parallels shared by ancient civilisations worldwide. The Maya/Egyptian parallels are among the most striking. Some of these parallels were recognised by Victorian and pre-Victorian era scholars and writers like Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg, Edward Herbert Thompson, Augustus Le Plongeon, Ignatius Donnelly, and Zelia Nuttall. Many of these scholars credited Plato’s lost continent of Atlantis with being the source of the similarities. Other parallels I’ve discovered through my own original research and investigation. The Victorian-era idea that the lost continent of Atlantis was the source of the parallels (i.e., a theory called “diffusion”) has fallen out of favour with scholars over the past several decades. As a result, nineteenth century ideas have been shelved in favour of a new theory called “independent invention,” which holds that ancient inventions, such as pyramid construction, naturally occurred in more than one place at the same or different times. As the Paul McCartney/Michael Jackson duet “Ebony and Ivory” put it, “people are the same wherever you go.” This “independent invention” theory has notably been maintained by modern scholars like Kenneth Feder, professor of archaeology at Central Connecticut State University. …. Are the following “10 Mayan & Egyptian Parallels” evidence that a sophisticated Golden Age civilisation—now almost completely forgotten—once existed in the ancient past, and was a kind of “Mother Culture” to the world´s first “known” cultures, like the Egyptians and Maya? 10 – Parallel Pyramids & Stone Serpents Both the Maya and the Egyptians built pyramids. In fact, both cultures didn’t just build pyramids, they built similar “step pyramids” (i.e., pyramids with a series of steps leading upward toward the apex), as we can see here. What’s more, there is clear evidence that both Egypt’s and Mexico’s “step pyramid” builders engaged in a kind of “serpent cult.” Because of its ability to shed its skin, the serpent symbolises regeneration and rebirth—concepts shared by both the Egyptians and Maya. We´re told by scholars that these concepts figured prominently in their metaphysical beliefs of eternal life, and life after death. With this in mind, it is especially interesting to note that not only did both the Egyptians and Maya build similar “step pyramids,” but they also crafted similar “stone serpents,” which are visible within sight of their parallel step pyramids. We can see examples of this in the photo below: What are the chances that two unrelated civilisations separated by the Atlantic Ocean would have come up with not only “step pyramids,” but also adjacent or nearby stone serpents? By itself, this “step pyramid/stone serpent” parallel is interesting, but certainly not dispositive or definitive proof of a direct link between the two civilisations. But there’s more, much more.… 9 – Similar Elongated Skulls The parallel Mayan/Egyptian phenomenon of elongated skulls and cranial deformation has been known to scholars for centuries. Among both the Maya and the Egyptians, the practice seems to have been performed to differentiate the elite from the lower classes. The earliest descriptions of cranial deformation among the Maya were reported by Spanish chroniclers in the 16th century. In 1843, the American explorer John L. Stephens published Incidents of Travel in Yucatán, describing an artificially deformed skull that he found during one of his excavations. The nineteenth century archaeologist Augustus Le Plongeon (1826 – 1908), in his book Queen Moo and The Egyptian Sphinx, described the practice among the peoples of the Mayan cities of Copan and Palenque. Popular authors like Ignatius L. Donnelly (1831 – 1901), in his book Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, elaborated on Le Plongeon’s analysis. According to an article written by a series of doctors entitled “A Look at Mayan Artificial Cranial Deformation Practices: Morphological and Cultural Aspects,” which was published in December 2010 in the journal Neurosurgical FOCUS, the Mayan practice of cranial deformation served to differentiate the elite from the common classes: “Induced deformation of the cranial vault is one form of permanent alteration of the body that has been performed by human beings from the beginning of history as a way of differentiating from others…High-ranking Mayan families of the Classic period differentiated themselves from the lower classes with their head shape. This social hierarchy can be seen in pottery, figurines, drawings, monuments, and architecture, where characters with oblique deformation are dominant.” —A Look at Mayan Artificial Cranial Deformation Practices: Morphological and Cultural Aspects. The idea that the Mayan elite practiced cranial deformation is interesting because the Egyptian elite also seem to have performed a skull elongation technique, possibly for the very same reason of differentiating themselves from the lower classes or common people. Shown in the example above is a statue of an elongated skull from Egypt’s Amarna Period, the era of the reign of Akhenaten (1353-1336 BCE) [sic]. The skull is described by scholars as belonging to the daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenophis IV, also known as Akhenaten. Artwork featuring Akhenaten’s daughters, Nofernoferuaton and Nofernoferure, with elongated skulls (c. 1375-1358 BC) is repeated in other pieces of Amarna art. Do the elongated skulls of both the Egyptian and Mayan “elite” point to a connection between the two civilisations? There is also evidence of real-life cranial deformation in Egypt, as described in a report titled “The Sociopolitical History & Physiological Underpinnings of Skull Deformation,” published by the Department of Neurological Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons. Interestingly, the report calls for more attention to be given to the “sociopolitical implications” of the practice. The report abstract states the following: “In this report, the evidence, mechanisms, and rationale for the practice of artificial cranial deformation (ACD) in ancient Peru and during Akhenaten’s reign in the 18th dynasty in Egypt (1375-1358 BCE) are reviewed. The authors argue that insufficient attention has been given to the sociopolitical implications of the practice in both regions.” — The Sociopolitical History & Physiological Underpinnings of Skull Deformation,” Columbia University College. Admittedly, the idea that both the Mayan and Egyptian elite practiced cranial deformation to perhaps differentiate them from the lower classes does not directly connect the two civilisations. However, the fact that the pyramid-building Egyptians and Maya both practiced this strange technique is certainly provocative and indicates the possibility of a connection. 8 – Parallel Corbeled Vault Arches The corbel arch was used in both Mayan and Egyptian architecture. A corbel arch (also called “corbeled” or “corbelled arch”) is an arch that uses the so-called “corbeling” construction method to span a space or void. A corbeled arch is constructed by offsetting successive courses of stone (or brick) in such a way that they project towards the archway’s centre from each supporting side, until the courses meet at the archway’s apex. The gap at the apex is then bridged with a flat stone. The work of pioneering nineteenth century archaeologist and intrepid explorer Augustus Le Plongeon has largely been discredited because of its diffusionist basis. Le Plongeon insisted that the parallel corbeled arch was evidence that the world’s first cultures were children of a much older civilisation named Atlantis. Le Plongeon believed that the universality of the corbel arch in antiquity was strong evidence of shared wisdom across the Atlantic Ocean. The scholar Lawrence G. Desmond, after receiving his PhD in anthropology and archaeology from the University of Colorado, Boulder, carried out archaeological research in Mexico and Guatemala for more than forty years. He is regarded as a leading scholar in the field of Maya archaeology. While expressing some reservations about Le Plongeon’s over-active imagination in an article chronicling Le Plongeon’s “downfall,” Desmond nonetheless appreciated the significance and essential correctness of Le Plongeon’s ideas regarding the corbeled arches shared by the Maya and Egyptians. Desmond credits Le Plongeon for pointing out parallels that (until now) have not yet been sufficiently explained: “…Augustus Le Plongeon, a pioneering Mayanist, renowned for having made the earliest thorough and systematic photographic documentation of archaeological sites in Yucatan… … for Le Plongeon, the most important evidence of cultural diffusion was the Mayas’ corbelled arch. The arches…he believed, had proportions that related to the “mystic numbers 3.5.7” which he stated were used by ancient Masonic master builders…Those same proportions, he also noted, were found in tombs in Chaldea and Etruria, in ancient Greek structures and as part of the Great Pyramid in Egypt… He was basically on the right track methodologically, and he did make a number of intriguing observations and analogies…” —Lawrence G. Desmond, Augustus Le Plongeon: A Fall From Archaeological Grace. 7 – Similar Hieroglyphic Writing The Egyptians and Mayans both used hieroglyphs, consisting of pictographs or symbols, to express meaning in written language. Mayan writing, which is often described by scholars as the most sophisticated writing system in the pre-Columbian Americas, was dubbed “hieroglyphics” (or hieroglyphs) by early eighteenth and nineteenth century European explorers, including Augustus Le Plongeon, who noticed its similarity to Egyptian hieroglyphics. Egyptian hieroglyphs consist of phonograms, which are placed at the beginning of words to represent sounds, whereas ideograms are used to represent objects or ideas. Mayan hieroglyphs consist of pictographs written in neat blocks that include phonograms and ideograms. Is it possible that Mayan and Egyptian glyphs both evolved from the same “proto-language” or that perhaps one of them may have in fact served as an origin for the other? Obtaining a satisfactory answer to that question depends on the successful decryption of Maya writing, which has been made vastly difficult by the bonfires of the sixteenth century christian Conquistadors [sic], who regarded the precious and irreplaceable Mayan scrolls as the work of the devil. Mackey’s comment: On this, see e.g. my article 6 – Similar Scenes & Motifs There are many similar scenes and motifs that link the Mayan and Egyptian civilisations, too many to list all of them here. For purposes of this discussion, I’ve narrowed down to three particularly powerful motifs: (A) the Smiting Scene (B) the Initiation Scene (C) the Twin Serpent Motif. (A) PARALLEL SMITING SCENE To be clear, this is not a Mayan/Egyptian parallel, but an Aztec/Egyptian one. However, the smiting scene is depicted on Mayan artefacts as well. When I first recognised this parallel motif in the late 1990s, I found it discouraging. Why? Because at the time, it seemed to me to convey barbarism. More precisely, the barbaric cruelty of a warlike people did not seem consistent with the metaphysically advanced and peaceful citizens (possible descendants of a highly evolved Golden Age mother culture) that I believed may have formed the bulk of Mayan and Egyptian society. However, as I continued to study this parallel “Smiting Scene” (Egyptologists call it a Smiting Scene, but Mayan scholars have no term for it), I became convinced that the scene does not depict the actual slaughter of one’s enemies. For a people as spiritual as the Egyptians to have created tens of thousands of Smiting Scenes (which appear abundantly in Egyptian culture, including on jewellery, furniture, amulets, and even on the walls of temples) did not seem in keeping with their high spiritual values. I came to believe instead that the scene could convey a metaphor—the slaying of one’s ego or inner demons, which is the real enemy of a spiritual seeker. In other words, the scene conveys a formula for slaughtering the physical animal nature of man (i.e., controlling or mastering the ego), which, as I explained in my 2011 book, Written in Stone, was a central doctrine in the ancient Egyptian religion and indeed in all of the world’s ancient religions. (B) PARALLEL INITIATION SCENE Another interesting Maya / Egyptian parallel is visible in scenes that depict what look like initiation or baptism rituals. John L. Sorenson, emeritus professor of anthropology at Brigham Young University (BYU) wrote: “…two ritual scenes are juxtaposed…one from Egypt… [and one] from the Codex Borgia…Mexico…dated shortly before the Spanish Conquest but surely it was based on earlier pictorial documents. While the two scenes differ in style, they share significant motifs. Shown are streams of water in the Mexican case and of ankh signs in the Egyptian scene, both of which in the respective traditions signified “life.” They are being poured by ritual officiants (divinities) positioned on either side of a central figure. The poured streams cross above his head. The Egyptian rite represented has become known as “the baptism of Pharaoh”… Over fifty years ago some of the corresponding characteristics of the two were pointed out to William F. Albright, the noted Syro-Palestinian archaeologist. He called the resemblance between the two scenes “most extraordinary” (personal communication, June 23, 1954) and continued that if the Mesoamerican scene had come from Mesopotamia “one would have to assume some connection” with Egypt.” —John L. Sorenson, A Complex of Ritual and Ideology Shared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East. It is difficult to state with certainty what this parallel scene meant to the Egyptians and Maya. Did it have the same meaning for both cultures? The Egyptian scene has become known among scholars as the “baptism of Pharaoh,” because they are inclined to believe that it might have been a purification ritual. Did the Mayan scene hold the same meaning? It is also possible that the symbolism shown here expresses the idea of initiation. Traditionally, the concept of initiation serves to reorient the individual away from his lower materialistic “animal” self. He is reoriented, instead, toward his higher “spiritual” Self and toward a more spiritual way of looking at the world. Water serves to cleanse, and it therefore appears possible that this parallel scene may depict a kind of initiation through cleansing, an idea that was apparently shared by both the Egyptians and Maya. (C) PARALLEL TWIN SERPENT MOTIF Another Mayan and Egyptian parallel is visible in the Twin Serpent motif. So-called “serpent bars,” depicting a serpent with twin heads and no tail, adorn the lintels of some Mayan temples, such as the Nunnery at Uxmal. Mayan statues and reliefs depict serpent bars in the hands of kings and priests. An example of this is depicted in the book, Ancient Civilizations of Mexico and Central America by Mesoamerican archaeologist Herbert Joseph Spinden (1879–1967). Spinden published the following drawings of Mayan serpent bars: Note the similarity that these Mayan “serpent bars” share with the Egyptian Aten symbol, which adorns the lintels of some Egyptian temples, like Trojan’s Kiosk at Philae. Both the Mayan “serpent bar” and the Egyptian Aten symbol depict double-headed serpents connected back-to-back, facing opposite directions of left and right. In the first example provided, we see Aztec symbolism showing the same “joined” twin serpent motif or double-headed serpent motif. Interestingly, we see essentially the same symbolism in Egypt, where a giant solar Aten symbol (which I believe signifies the soul/source) crowns the middle between the serpents. 5 – Human Jaguars (Maya) & Human Lions (Egyptians) The Egyptians and Maya both created art and architecture depicting human beings transforming into, or having transformed into, felines. For the Egyptians, the feline was the lion; for the Maya, the feline was the jaguar. Side-by-side comparisons of an Egyptian sphinx (a mythical creature with the head of a human and the body of a lion) with what Mesoamerican scholars describe as the “were-jaguar” (as in “werewolf”) reveal many commonalities. The term “were-jaguar” is derived from Old English were, meaning “man”, and jaguar, a large member of the cat family prevalent across Mesoamerica. What exactly did this feline transformation theme on opposite sides of the Atlantic mean? Researchers and philosophers have sought to decipher the meaning of the mysterious and colossal Sphinx statue that was buried in the desert sands for centuries before it was dug up and polished off in the early 1800s. Most contemporary Egyptologists, like Dr. Mark Lehner and Dr. Zahi Hawass, believe that the Sphinx was carved out of an outcropping during the reign of King Khafre, c. 2500 BCE …. Damien Mackey’s comment: The Sphinx was much later than this. See e.g. my article: Sphinx of Giza and Egypt’s so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom (6) Sphinx of Giza and Egypt’s so-called 'Middle' Kingdom | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Richard Cassaro’s article continues: …. It is well-known that sphinxes have been found among many ancient civilisations, not just the Egyptians and Maya. These civilisations include cultures in India, Phoenicia, Syria, China, Greece, Thailand, Japan, Sumer, and Sri Lanka. Egyptologists don’t yet seem to have “cracked the code” of the Sphinx, as they have not given any clear and decisive definition explaining exactly what the hidden meaning is behind this massive statue. This hidden meaning seems to be embodied not just in the Great Sphinx, but also in countless smaller sphinx statues depicting Egyptian kings and pharaohs in lionised form: ….. Just as Egypt’s pharaohs were depicted as lions, Mesoamerican (Olmec, Maya, Aztec) kings and rulers were depicted as jaguars. We can see this in the following examples: Dr. Nicholas Saunders, Senior Lecturer, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, School of Arts, University of Bristol, explains: “The jaguar is America’s largest and most powerful cat, and for more than three thousand years it has been Mexico’s most enduring symbolic animal. The jaguar’s image…prowls the art of most ancient Mexican civilizations, from the Olmec to the Aztec…the jaguar was identified with sorcery and magic, and regarded as the spirit-helper of shamans and sorcerers, as well as the most dazzling symbol of priests and kings…In pre-Columbian times, before the Spanish arrived, animal and human features were often combined to create what we regard as fantastical creatures possessing supernatural strength and magical powers. No surprise then that the kings and rulers of the Aztecs, the Maya, and earlier civilizations adorned themselves with jaguar skins, skulls, fangs and claws. Carvings, paintings or statues of humans wearing jaguar clothing or appearing to be half-human, half-jaguar, are more than simple artistic images – they represent fundamental ideas and beliefs of the Aztecs and their predecessors…… Among the Classic Maya (AD 250-800), the jaguar’s brilliantly-coloured pelt was used as royal clothing for dynastic warrior-kings, and as a covering for royal thrones – some of which were carved in the shape of a feline, as at the Maya cities of Palenque, Uxmal, and Chichén-Itzá……Classic Maya rulers believed that using the jaguar’s name gave them prestige, and so there are examples where it has been attached to a king’s royal title. Similarly in death, archaeological evidence from Uaxactún and Kaminaljuyu in Guatemala, and Altun Ha in Belize reveals that Maya kings were buried with the animal’s skin, claws, and fangs.” —Dr. Nicholas Saunders, The Jaguar in Mexico. As demonstrated above, the Egyptians, in funerary monuments and public statuary, depicted their pharaohs as transforming or having transformed into feline sphinxes. Most Egyptologists believe that the colossal Egyptian sphinx on the famous Giza Plateau outside Cairo represents the Pharaoh Khafre. …. Given the fact that Egypt’s pharaohs depicted themselves as sphinxes (i.e., half man half feline creatures), what are the chances that ancient Mayan kings and rulers also depicted themselves as half man and half feline creatures? Can this be mere coincidence? Or does this parallel iconography on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean reveal some type of unexplained link between the Maya and Egyptians? How did “human-into-feline-transformation” become a cherished motif among both Maya and Egyptian kings? 4 – Parallel Third Eye Symbolism For almost two decades, I’ve been pointing to the presence of Third Eye symbolism across the ancient world because I believe that the ancient art of “awakening the Third Eye” was a kind of universal religion that flourished in Antiquity, as-yet unrecognised by scholars. There is ancient evidence of the Third Eye in Hinduism, where the Third Eye is symbolized by a dot on the forehead above and between the two eyes. This Third Eye dot, called “bindi” / “bindu,” “urna” and “trinetra,” is visible on images of the Buddha, gods, and bodhisattvas. Is it possible that this same Third Eye symbol was known among ancient cultures outside Asia? I believe the answer is yes. On the left, we see two so-called “Chac” masks encoded in Mayan architecture. They are stacked on top of each other, and each mask wears a giant circular stone on the forehead. The stone is in the same position as the Hindu “bindi dot,” which in India symbolises the Third Eye, a state of awakening and enlightenment. On the right, in Egypt, the solar “aten” symbol crowns the forehead. In my opinion, the aten is a symbol of the soul / source. Shown here in the position of the Third Eye, the message is clear. According to ancient Hindu tradition, the act of awakening the Third Eye means awakening the eye of the soul and seeing the soul or source within. “The third eye (also called the mind’s eye, or inner eye) is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye which provides perception beyond ordinary sight.” — Richard Cavendish, ed. (1994). Man, Myth and Magic – Volume 19. Incredibly, and despite the fact that few scholars are willing to seriously entertain such a notion, the ancient Third Eye tradition of the Eastern hemisphere seems to have been a major cultural force in the Western hemisphere. As I explained in Written in Stone, we find a very Asian-like pattern of Third Eye symbolism among cultures that evolved and flourished in present-day Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru, Ecuador, Columbia, Panama, Costa Rica and even the United States. These cultures include the Olmec, Toltec, Maya, Zapotec, Aztec, Inca, pre-Inca, and Mississippian cultures. For an overview of my research into the Third Eye among the ancient Egyptians, please read my article “Third Eye in Ancient Egypt”. 3 – Parallel “Back-to-Back” Lions/Jaguars The Maya and Egyptians both used the same “back-to-back” jaguars (Maya) and lions (Egyptians) motif. On the left, we see a statue in front of the Governor’s Palace at Uxmal, Mexico, depicting twin Mayan jaguars back-to-back. On the right, in the comparative image above, is a famous Egyptian “hieroglyph” or “god” or “motif” called Aker, depicting back-to-back twin lions. “Aker appears as a pair of twin lions, one named Duaj (meaning “yesterday”) and the other Sefer (meaning “tomorrow”)…When depicted as a lion pair…a sun disc was put between the lions; the lions were sitting back-on-back.” —Pat Remler, Egyptian Mythology, A to Z. …. The idea of an “eternal present” moment or the “eternal now” moment is a central concept in Eastern spiritual teachings and occult philosophy. It goes by the name “non-duality,” and we find it in Advaita Vedanta, Ch’an Buddhism, Zen, Taoism and Sufism. “The Asian idea of nondualism developed in the Vedic and post-Vedic Hindu philosophies, as well as in the Buddhist traditions.” —Sanghamitra Dasgupta and Dilip Kumar Mohanta, Indian Philosophical Quarterly # 25. There is a symbol in Mayan art and iconography that is similar to the Egyptian Aker Lions hieroglyph. This Mesoamerican counterpart depicts the image of twin jaguars and twin jaguar-like humans. Like the Aker lions in Egypt, the Mesoamerican jaguars are facing opposite directions, which, in my opinion, indicates that they symbolise duality. In some cases, not only are the jaguars lying back-to-back (close together and facing opposite directions) just like in Egypt, but they are also lying in such a way that their physical bodies are enmeshed. This gives the impression that their duality has been united, and they have combined into a single being—a double-headed jaguar. Did this “twin jaguar” symbol have the same meaning among the Maya as the Aker Lions symbol among the Egyptians? Based on this symbolism, one could argue that Egypt’s Aker Lions symbol signifies the unification of opposites into the centre principle, the Aten or sundisk, which I believe symbolises the soul. …. 2 – Parallel Tau Cross …. For the Maya and Egyptians, the Tau was no insignificant object. They used it in their art, architecture, funeral rituals, ceremonies, on their altars and thrones, in their jewellery, and they depicted themselves and their gods holding the symbol on statues and reliefs, as shown in the images above. More commonly known in Egypt as the “ankh,” the T cross is an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic ideograph symbolising “life” in the sense of the “eternal life” or spiritual life of the soul. The ankh has a loop handle, partly disguising the T and Tau cross. However, the Egyptian ankh is no less a letter T than the Maya T cross. We should keep in mind that its Latin name, crux ansata, means “cross with a handle.” In 1994, the uncovering of T-shaped stone pillars among the world’s oldest dated megaliths at the famous archaeological site of Göbekli Tepe provided stunning confirmation that the Tau cross played a major role among the most ancient civilisations around the world. Interestingly, Göbekli Tepe’s T-shaped pillars are giant abstract images of the human form. Arms and hands are visible on the megaliths, as if uniting the T with the human body, as shown in the image above: “The characteristic element of Göbekli Tepe’s architecture are the T-shaped pillars. In the older Layer III (10th millennium BCE) the monolithic pillars weigh tons and reach heights between 4 m (pillars in the stone circles) and 5.5 m (central pillars). The T-shape of the pillars is clearly an abstract depiction of the human body seen from the side. Evidence for this interpretation are the low relief depictions of arms, hands and items of clothing like belts and loincloths on some of the pillars.” —Oliver Dietrich, The Tepe Telegrams. Incredibly, the Egyptian Tau cross was sometimes personified—depicted with arms and legs. That Gobekli Tepe’s T-shaped pillars and ancient Egypt’s Tau cross were both anthropomorphised provides compelling evidence of a possible, even likely, connection between the two cultures. …. 1 – Matching Triptych Temples I researched the ruins of Triptych Temples all over the ancient world—and most pronouncedly among the pyramid cultures—in the late 1990s, and, as demonstrated in my 2011 book Written in Stone, these temples all celebrate the same universal religion (Perennial Philosophy) of non-duality that was shared across all of antiquity. The pyramid-cultures all built “Triptych” three-door temples, with a wider and taller middle door than the two flanking it. The abundant occurrence of the Triptych across the ancient world is not a random coincidence. The Triptych represents more than merely an architectural element; the Triptych is the chief symbol of an advanced universal religion (perennial philosophy) that was once shared globally in antiquity, mainly by the pyramid cultures. In my books, I have shown how the twin outer doors of Triptych Temples symbolise duality, or the “pairs of opposites”; the centre door symbolises the unity of the twin outer doors or the “balance of duality” (i.e., non-duality). Egyptologists and Mayanists recognise that the concept of non-duality (also called the “balance of opposites”) formed an essential feature of core wisdom-teaching among the ancient Egyptians and the Maya. …. [End of article] Somewhat similarly we read this piece (2021) at (I do not accept the inflated BC dates): https://raymondmeester.medium.com/egypt-vs-mesoamerica-d3fc3ef03c62 Egypt vs. Mesoamerica 10 similarities between both Ancient civilizations Ancient Egypt is often compared to Mesopotamia. Two cultures that we call the birth of civilization. Egypt developed around the Nile river and Mesopotamia between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. Both show remarkable advances in agriculture, trade, and government. They also developed highly complex writing systems, religions, and art. There are, of course, various other ancient civilizations such as the Indus Valley (from 3300 B.C.), China (from 1600 B.C.), and the ancient Greeks (from 2700 B.C.) [sic] They all contributed to our own culture we know today. At certain points in time, these civilizations came into contact with each other, either through trade or war. Eventually, they all influenced each other. The Mesoamerican civilizations, such as the Olmec, Maya, and Aztec, developed completely independently [sic]. They originated from the people who crossed the Bering Strait 30,000 years ago and slowly moved south. In Mesoamerica, they evolved from hunter-gatherers to complex civilizations with societies similar in complexity to ancient Egypt. Actually some traits of Ancient Egypt and the Mesoamerican cultures are so similar that it’s interesting to compare these two societies. …. 10 Comparisons You might say that it’s impossible to compare Egypt and Mesoamerica because their history, civilization, and other factors are so different. But precisely because they developed so differently, with different circumstances, that’s why it’s so interesting. 1. Gold In Egypt one of the greatest art artifacts was found in 1925. The mask of Tutankhamun. It weighs more than 10 kilo and large parts are of high-karat gold. Despite the fact that many tombs have been looted, a number of treasures were still saved. The precious metal was mined in Nubia (which comes from the Egyptian word for gold). The precious metal was in many Mesoamerican cultures just as important. Though the emergence of gold metalwork in Central America occurred relatively late, around 800 AD it developed its own techniques and artwork. Two civilizations with the same value for gold. Gold in Ancient Egypt | Essay | The Metropolitan Museum of Art | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History Egypt is a land rich in gold, and ancient miners employing traditional methods were thorough in their exploitation of… www.metmuseum.org The secrets and significance of gold in Mesoamerica | GLINT - The Global Currency From zoomorphic masks to the secrets of lost metallurgy, how and why did gold become such an important representation… glintpay.com 2. Pyramids Both Egypt and Mesoamerica made significant pyramids that still amaze us today. Long scolars [sic] thought that pyramids in Mesoamerica had only a function as a temple, but later research suggests that it mainly has been used in a burial function for kings. Just like it did for pharaohs. The Great Pyramid of Giza has a height of 139 meters. The Mesoamerican are mostly smaller and contain on the top statues of gods. Still the temple of the sun of the Aztecs has a height of 71 meter. 3. Polytheistic gods Both Egypt and Mesoamerica had an important role for religion. Both where polytheistic with a variety of gods. Both were very fluent in honouring gods. There are mostly endless number of gods and their popularity and ranking changed over time. Both cultures also believed that this god needed to be praised and worshipped in order to have good harvests and enough food supply for their people to survive. Formal religious practice centered around the pharaohs (Egypt) or kings (Mesoamerica). In both religions the god of the sun was widely favored. For example Ra in Egypt and Huitzilopotchli (also god of war) by the Aztecs. Below are the major gods of Egypt and the Aztecs: 4. Warriors In Egypt as well as Mesoamerica there was an admiration and worship towards hunting animals. Often gods or rulers appear in these forms. Important forms in Egypt are the falcon, bull, cats and lions. In Mesoamerica also the falcon was worshipped as well as the jaguar. Often jaguar skins were worn by royals or elite warriors. In Egypt, people were sometimes represented as a sphinx (half human, half animal). Mesoamerican and Egyptian warriors 5. Pay for Death In Egypt the Book of the Dead is a series of spells that guides a deceased person to the afterlife. There is no canonical version of it. No version is the same. At first the spells were only used for royalties, but later had a more widespread usage. The spells should have helped the deceased to enter the underworld. The Maya has also a book of the dead (The ceramic codex). The Maya dead were laid to rest with maize placed in their mouth. Maize, highly important in Maya culture, is a symbol of rebirth and also was food for the dead for the journey to the otherworld. Similarly, a jade or stone bead placed in the mouth served as currency for this journey. Thus both need to pay with religious objects to get to the ‘other side’. 6. Calenders [sic] Both civilizations had calendars. One for everyday life and one for religious purposes. The Egyptians first had a lunar calendar, but later switched to a solar one. July 19th was the Egyptian new year. That was the date that Sirius reappeared on the eastern horizon after a 70-day absence, and the date the Nile began to flood. Mesoamaerican societies like the Zapotec, Maya, Mixtecs and Aztecs, used a highly complex system of calendars. Most of these cultures used a 260 day and a 365 day calendar. The first was more ritual and second for everyday life. Special significance was when both calendars completed (The so-called Calendar Round) every 52 years. This often marked a new beginning often accompanied by a fire ceremony. 7. The role of the king In Egypt the king was called a pharaoh and among the Aztecs the king was called Huey Tlatoani. Here we take the Azetcs ruler as an example, though Maya and other mesoamerican civilzation may used different practices for their rulers. Both the pharaoh and tlatoan were the ultimate power in the land. Assisted by priest, nobles and the military. As head of the army they were given a leading role during war times. The tomb of Tutankhamun contained body armor, bows and folding tools appropriate for military campaigns. He was expected to lead the army. Among the Aztecs this was not different. During times of war, the Tlatoani would be in charge of creating battle plans, and making strategies for his army. The Pharoah was recognized by his scepter, crowns and various headdresses. The Tlatoani is known by a feather crown which is seen in the museum in Vienna of king Moctezuma II. The last surviving crown from the Aztec empire. Often also Jaguar attributes and scepters were kings attributes in Mesoamerica. 8. Columns In Ancient Egypt there were several columns erected. They were called Tekhenu by their builders and later obelisks (from Greek). Ancient obelisks are monolithic, which means that they are made from one stone. In Egypt the obelisk were standing in pairs at the entrance of a temple. They symbolized the sun god Ra. In Mesoamerica often, so-called Atlantean figures were created. These are carved stone support columns that portrayed Toltec warriors. The Tula figures are the most famous, but later Maya and Aztecs created similar columns. They also created stelae, originally for mythological scenes, but later mostly to glorify the king and his deeds. Egyptian and Mayan columns often use hieroglyphic texts on the pillar. 9. Astronomy Living in populated areas with its bright light, you don’t think a lot about the stars. For most ancient civilizations this was very different. Studying the night sky was serious business. It was used for their calendars and many other things. In Egypt for example structures like Pyramids were often aligned with the stars. They were also used in fixing dates for religious festivals, determine the hours of the night and lunar phases. The Mayan astronomy was often more accurate in the calculating of years. They, too, had a religious aspect for determine religious festivals (there even was a special calendar for it). There is also proof for alignment of buildings with celestial objects. The Mayan astronomers studied the sun and moon, the planets and other astronomical phenomena. Amazing that this was completely done with naked-eye observations. 10. Writing Both Egyptians and Aztecs use hieroglyphic texts. The Egyptian hieroglyphs consist of around 1000 characters. The writing system emerged artistic tradition where symbols were found on for example pottery. Scientist think it’s plausible that the Egyptian derived the concept from Sumerian writing. The Mesoamerican didn’t have this luxery. [sic] The writing systems developed gradually from older civilizations (like Olmecs) to more complex one like the Mayas. Around 15 Mesoamerican writing systems are currently known. Technically they are not really hieroglyphs. Maya writing used logograms complemented with a set of syllabic glyphs (like Japanes writing). Maya writing was mistakenly called “hieroglyphics” by early European explorers. ….

Monday, May 6, 2024

Seleucid and Ptolemaïc apotheosis of ancients

by Damien F. Mackey “The name Esagil-kini-ubba, ummânu or “royal secretary” during the reign of Nebuchednezzar I, was preserved in Babylonian memory for almost one thousand years – as late as the year 147 of the Seleucid Era (= 165 B.C.)”. J. Brinkman They did it with Imhotep and with Amenhotep son of Hapu, of Egypt. They did it with Ahikar. They may have done it as well with King Solomon, as Gudea, supposedly of Sumer. And they did it with many others as well, especially those associated with wonders. Just as the early post-diluvians had divinised notable ante-diluvian humans - with Nimrod perhaps leading the way in this work of apotheosising - so, too, did the Macedonian Seleucids and Ptolemies glorify and divinise notables who had come before them. Why, as late as St. Paul’s time, the pagans were still at it (Acts 14:11-12): “When the crowd [in Lystra] saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, ‘The gods have come down to us in human form!’ Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker”. Dietrich Wildung has written about Imhotep and Amenhotep, son of Hapu, as being the only true geniuses of Egyptian history (Imhotep und Amenhotep: Gottwerdung im alten Ägypten, München: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1977). And we read at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep,_son_of_Hapu “Amenhotep and Imhotep are among the few non-royal Egyptians who were deified after their death, and until the 21st century, they were thought to be only two commoners to achieve this status …”. The case of Imhotep Did Imhotep even exist? Previously I have written on this: Even a year ago I would not seriously have queried the historical reality of Imhotep. As far as I was concerned, the genius Imhotep of Egypt’s so-called Third Dynasty was the clear candidate for the biblical Joseph, son of Jacob, who had saved Egypt from a seven-year Famine. Did not Imhotep do the very same on behalf of his ruler (Pharaoh, as we say), Netjerikhet (Djoser, or Zoser)? Thus we read, in part, in Netjerikhet’s (Neterkhet’s) celebrated Sehel Famine Stela: Year 18 of Horus: Neterkhet; the King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Neterkhet; Two Ladies: Neterkhet; Gold-Horus: Djoser; under the Count, Prince, Governor of the domains of the South, Chief of the Nubians in Yebu, Mesir. There was brought to him this royal decree. To let you know: I was in mourning on my throne, Those of the palace were in grief, My heart was in great affliction, Because Hapy had failed to come in time In a period of seven years. Grain was scant, Kernels were dried up, Scarce was every kind of food. Every man robbed his twin, Those who entered did not go. Children cried, Youngsters fell, The hearts of the old were grieving; Legs drawn up, they hugged the ground, Their arms clasped about them. Courtiers were needy, Temples were shut, Shrines covered with dust, Everyone was in distress. I directed my heart to turn to the past, I consulted one of the staff of the Ibis, The chief lector-priest of Imhotep, Son of Ptah South-of-his-Wall: "In which place is Hapy born? Which is the town of the Sinuous one? Which god dwells there? That he might join with me." …. The following article by Alexandra Malenko, whilst presenting a typical, and most favourable view of Imhotep, includes sufficient precautionary comments to rein in any excess enthusiasm, e.g. “the myth created by the directors”, “great unknown”, “the world had forgot about him”, “what is fiction or exaggeration”, etc.: https://huxley.media/en/imhotep-leonardo-da-vinci-from-the-banks-of-the-nile/ IMHOTEP: Leonardo da Vinci from the banks of the Nile Even when there were no pyramids in Egypt, the legend said that he was great and powerful, he was the first who erected such a miracle in the sands. During the time of Cleopatra, he was revered as a wise and a skillful healer, during the reign of the Ptolemies, in the so-called Hellenistic period in the history of Egypt, he was worshiped as a deity. But here’s the trick: the name of Imhotep is well known to us, but not from scientific works, rather from entertainment films. Great power of cinema! This art is capable of distorting and altering everything, shown on the screen is so easy to believe, and the myth created by the directors is so difficult to collapse… Through the efforts of Hollywood masters, Imhotep is known to the broad masses for the film The Mummy, its numerous remarks and remakes. And whether it is Imhotep performed by Boris Karloff or Arnold Vosloo, the film image is incredibly far from the truth. THE GREAT UNKNOWN Imhotep (his name in translation means “the one who walks in peace”) lived in the 27th century BC [sic]. He was a healer and an architect, an inventor, a genius of his time and a polymath, as the ancient Greeks called such unique ones, Leonardo da Vinci of the Ancient World. During his long life, Imhotep served three pharaohs. His extraordinary talents were revealed during the first ruler of the Third Dynasty, Djoser. And two millennia later, other rulers, different people, raised him to the rank of a deity: in the era of the Ptolemies, the Greeks – the inhabitants of Egypt – revered him as the god of medicine on a par with their “native” Asclepius. According to some testimonies, the cult of Imhotep lasted until the appearance of Christianity and Islam in Egypt. With the arrival of the dominant religions, his temples were destroyed, most of the works were lost. Until the nineteenth century, until researchers began to decipher hieroglyphic texts, the world had forgot about him. But the very first mentions of an outstanding scientist of the Ancient World stunned Egyptologists. In 1926, during the excavation of the Djoser pyramid, archaeologists discovered a statue dated to the years when Imhotep hypothetically lived. On the basis of the statue, after the name of the pharaoh, the name of Imhotep was written and a list of titles was given: the keeper of the treasury of the king in Lower Egypt, the ruler of a large palace, the first after the king in Lower Egypt, the priest of Heliopolis, the architect, the carver of precious vases… For one person, the title of chati would be enough – this position in modern gradation can be equated with the post of prime minister. Chati was in charge of political and economic issues, was involved in the formation of the budget, made current executive decisions… But Imhotep was also a priest, therefore he had many responsibilities outside the palace. As a priest of the god Ra, the god of sun, he traveled extensively in Upper and Lower Egypt, taught the people the wisdom set forth in the sacred texts. …. THE GOD OF HEALING Many researchers reasonably consider Imhotep the founder of modern medicine. He was one of the first to consider diseases and the healing process not as punishment or mercy of the gods, but as natural processes, and began to apply methods of treatment not related to religious rituals. Until now, no sources have been found that would confirm that Imhotep was a healer. It can be argued that his ideas contributed to the development of medical science. Imhotep’s teachings are retold in a text known as the Edwin Smith Papyrus, dated around 1500 BC. The ancient scientist knew methods of treating over 200 diseases, including a method for treating inflammation of the appendix and arthritis, he knew the healing properties of many plants and natural products. Guided by his instructions, the Egyptians consumed a lot of honey – a product with pronounced bactericidal properties, they also used honey to heal wounds. However, it should be noted that even before the birth of Imhotep, from about 2750 BC., Egyptian doctors knew human anatomy well. They knew how to do a kind of neurosurgical operations, and very successful. Obviously, they received extensive knowledge about the structure of man through mummification. During this complex procedure, the internal organs were removed from the body, inquiring minds had the opportunity to examine them well, study, and comprehend the principles of their work. The Egyptians believed that the heart is at the center of a network of channels through which blood, air and semen are carried to different parts of the body. The ancient physicians also knew that proper nutrition and adherence to the rules of hygiene create a reliable barrier to many diseases. One of the first medical recommendations was a ban on the consumption of raw fish and pork. However, in the matter of healing, the help of the gods was useful. During the treatment procedures, prayers were certainly read and special rituals were performed. There was some practical sense in it as well, because confidence in a favorable outcome of the disease is already a small victory over it. Imhotep, it seems, was, as they would say today, the popularizer of medical science, as a result, the fame of the great healer deservedly went to him. Temples were erected to him in Thebes and Memphis, people were ready to go half the world to worship him. It was then that thousands of statues of Imhotep were created: it was believed that everyone who possessed such a thing was under his patronage. At the same time, scientists believe, incredible stories about the great genius of the wise priest and chati were born: as if he cured Pharaoh Djoser of blindness, saved the kingdom from a seven-year drought, and defeated the great famine in the country. What is true in these retellings, and what is fiction or exaggeration, scientists are not ready to answer unequivocally. Time will tell, because excavations in Saqqara continue, the sands, albeit reluctantly, reveal ancient secrets. Perhaps it is there, on the plateau in the Nile Valley, that the solution to the nature of human genius will be found. [End of quote] I commenced this present article by writing: Even a year ago I would not seriously have queried the historical reality of Imhotep. As far as I was concerned, the genius Imhotep of Egypt’s so-called Third Dynasty was the clear candidate for the biblical Joseph, son of Jacob, who had saved Egypt from a seven-year Famine. Did not Imhotep do the very same on behalf of his ruler … Netjerikhet …? …. What I just wrote above may still fully apply chronologically speaking. The difference now, however, is that I would not embrace ‘Imhotep’ so uncritically. And here is why: Only when Brenton Minge’s book, Pharaoh’s Evidence. Egypt’s Stunning Witness to Joseph and Exodus (2013), arrived for me to review did I begin to question, not only Imhotep as Joseph, but even the very historical existence of Imhotep. Brenton Minge, who holds to a conspiracy theory view that Imhotep was a made-up imitation of the real Joseph, begins his Chapter 4: Was Imhotep … Joseph? with what has already been noted above about Imhotep – those late sources (p. 45): The problem, in historical terms, is that while Imhotep is placed around 2650 BC … his cult, or even any remembrance of him, only made its first appearance more than a millennium later. Imhotep authority Dietrich Wildung points out that, before then, “We have no clear records that Imhotep was remembered, much less venerated, for the thousand years after his death until the beginning of the New Kingdom” (emphasis added). …. Hence the Encyclopedia of Ancient History’s observation that his first claim to “deity” was in the “Late Period” (ie., around 712-332 BC) … effectively representing a 2,000-year “deity” silence from his claimed time to his earliest statue! …. On pp. 46-47, Brenton Minge will present one of his crucial arguments, that the word imhotep on the base of king Netjerikhet’s statue is not a name at all, but a title, and that the actual name of the title-holder has been carefully erased. He writes: Background In 1926, excavations at Sakkara’s Step Pyramid uncovered the base of pharaoh Netjerikhet’s statue, bearing the insignia of both the king and, as is presumed, Imhotep. Concerning the latter it reads (reading right to left): “Chancellor of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, first after the King, Administrator of the great palace, Director of public works, Overseer of the seers [of On], Imhotep the Architect, the Builder …” … (continuing, but broken off – see below left). For an officeholder to appear beside his king on an Egyptian royal statue is otherwise unheard of …. Yet here the full blaze of Pharaonic glory includes the architect, side by side with his Pharaoh – a truly remarkable honour. But what of the name Imhotep itself? For two reasons, it is submitted that this was not the name of the person being honoured, but part of his titles. 1. “Imhotep” literally comes from two words: im, meaning “overseer” (as still reflected in the Arabic imam), and hotep, meaning “peaceful”, or “blessed”, as in the Field of Hotep, or “Field of the Blessed”. With the variant imy, im occurs in more than 70 Egyptian administrative titles of the Old Kingdom … always containing a meaning closer to “overseer”/ “director”. Hence “Im-hotep” (often formerly spelt with a hyphen) … would seem as much of an administrative title as all the others in the inscription, effectively meaning “overseer who comes in peace”, or, more concisely, “blessed overseer”. 2. The inscription is unfinished, with the end part (at left) being conspicuously broken off. Yet the end, according to Egyptian protocol, is precisely where the proper name belongs, as Battiscombe Gunn – later Professor of Egyptology at the University of Oxford – observed: “Egyptian titles never follow the name of their holder, but only precede it. …”. That is, THE PROPER NAME ALWAYS COMES AT THE END, AFTER THE TITLES. Therefore “blessed overseer”, by virtue of its placement as much as its wording, cannot be a name, but only a descriptive “job title”, since there is clearly more to go! The description is manifestly unfinished. As Professor R.J. Forbes, of the University of Amsterdam, observed, “Only in the case of gods do the titles follow the name, never in the case of human beings” … (recalling from the encyclopaedia above, that Imhotep’s first claim to “deity” was still millennia away). So it would seem that, assuming the inscription is authentic, this endearing title (“blessed overseer”/ “overseer of peace”) was effectively later lifted from it, and reprocessed as a proper name with a life of its own. “A later tradition”, writes The Oxford Classical Dictionary (without taking our view), “identified Imhotep … as the architect”. …. Yet it could just as readily be referring to Joseph himself, the true and known “blessed overseer” of Egypt under his king (with his Egyptian name skilfully removed at the end; see Genesis 41:45; 45:26). [End of quotes] Along with their divinisation, these re-made characters are considered - not illogically - as having been the wisest of sages, universal polymaths. What today might be called “the Renaissance man”. Hence it is only fitting that Alexandra Malenko (above) might entitle her article: IMHOTEP: Leonardo da Vinci from the banks of the Nile The case of Amenhotep son of Hapu More confidently than in the case of Imhotep can we be sure that Amenhotep son of Hapu really did exist. And we know when. He dutifully served the Eighteenth Dynasty pharaoh of Egypt, Amenhotep (so-called III) ‘the Magnificent’. We read at: https://historicaleve.com/amenhotep-son-of-hapu/ Deification Amenhotep, son of Hapu, remained entrenched in popular consciousness long after his passing, along with his contemporaries. To such an extent, he eventually came to be revered as a minor deity during the Ptolemaic period, a millennium after his departure from the mortal realm. Associated with the revered sage Imhotep, who also attained divine status, Amenhotep was venerated as a benevolent magician who interceded on behalf of devotees before Amun and other deities, believed to possess healing and protective powers. In Thebes, the city where the majority of monuments dedicated to him and the pharaoh he served were erected, Amenhotep even had chapels dedicated to his worship, perpetuating his legacy for generations to come. …. If my reconstructions of Amenhotep son of Hapu are correct, then he really was a larger-than-life-character, one for whom even a miracle had been worked: Marvellous optimism of pharaoh Akhnaton (10) Marvellous optimism of pharaoh Akhnaton | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The case of Gudea We read at: Gudea_of_Lagash_Iconoclasm_or_Tooth_of_T.pdf …. Gudea’s posthumous veneration bespeaks the special status of Lagash within the ur iii state and fits well with Michalowski’s thesis that the ur iii grand viziers came from a prominent Girsu clan. Gudea became a local hero: … he was posthumously deified, his name was used as a theophoric element in personal names, just like that of deified ur iii kings, and the same priestly offices that are associated with the cult of deified Ur III kings (gudu₄, nin dingir) are also attested for him. …. offerings for deceased rulers in the ur iii cultic calendar are exceptionally well attested in Girsu. …. Gudea, as in the case of Imhotep - supposedly of the Third Dynasty of Egypt - appears to have been a somewhat made-up character based upon a real person. Presumably, in the case of Imhotep, this real person was the biblical Joseph of Egypt; and, in the case of Gudea, it was King Solomon of Jerusalem (rendered as Girsu). See e.g.my article: Gudea had a dream (10) Gudea had a Dream | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu A garbled history of Judah and some its most famous characters appear to have been later re-fashioned, now in a Sumerian setting: Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu (10) Yahweh, Solomon, Jerusalem - Ningirsu, Gudea and Girsu | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The case of Ahikar Suffice it to quote here from The Story of Ahikar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_of_Ahikar The Story of Aḥiqar, also known as the Words of Aḥiqar, is a story first attested in Imperial Aramaic from the fifth century BCE on papyri from Elephantine, Egypt, that circulated widely in the Middle and the Near East.[1][2][3] It has been characterised as "one of the earliest 'international books' of world literature".[4] The principal character, Aḥiqar, might have been a chancellor to the Assyrian Kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. Only a Late Babylonian cuneiform tablet from Uruk (Warka) mentions an Aramaic name Aḫu’aqār.[5] His name is written in Imperial Aramaic אחיקר and in Syriac ܐܚܝܩܪ and is transliterated as Aḥiqar, Arabic حَيْقَار (Ḥayqār), Greek Achiacharos, and Slavonic Akyrios, with variants on that theme such as Armenian Խիկար (Xikar) and Ottoman Turkish Khikar, a sage known in the ancient Near East for his outstanding wisdom.[6] …. As in the case of Imhotep, Ahikar has been turned into a saint, sage and polymath, whereas, originally, he was merely a military officer and governor for Assyria – albeit a very competent one. The Seleucids knew him as Ahuqar – his Assyrian name being Aba-enlil-dari – and his Babylonian name being Esagil-kini-ubba. Sadly, via his given foreign names, Ahikar, now construed as being the polymath to overshadow all polymaths, has become the foundation for some of the greatest sage-polymaths of a Golden Age of Islam that never was: Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism (10) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Relevant also to the above is this article: Age-old temptation to make oneself God (9) Age-old temptation to make oneself God | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu