BD 125 is compared not only to Matthew 25 but also to the biblical 10 Commandments, as a possible source of both. In Matthew 25, after the parable of the talents, Jesus is depicted as describing the "Last Judgment" thus: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels are with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'..." (Mt 25:31-36) Speaking of the Egyptian "sayings of the Lord," Massey avers that these were utilized in the creation of Christianity, put into the mouth of Lord Jesus, and remarks: ...a few most significant ones may be found in the Book of the Dead. In one particular passage the speaker says he has given food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, and a boat to the shipwrecked; and, as the Osirified [the Osiris] has done these things, the Judges say to him, "Come, come in peace," and he is welcomed to the festival which is called "Come thou to me." Those who have done these things on earth are held to have done them to Horus, the Lord; and they are invited to come to him as the blessed ones of his father Osiris. In this passage we have not only the sayings reproduced by Matthew, but also the drama and the scenes of the Last Judgment represented in the Great Hall of Justice, where a person is separated from his sins, and those who have sided with Sut against Horus are transformed into goats.[2322]

Just as Massey relates, in Birch's translation of BD 125 may be found the following: The God has welcomed him as he has wished. He has given food to [my] the hungry, drink to [my] the thirsty, clothes to [my] the naked [ness], he has made a boat for me to go by.... Therefore do not accuse him before the Lord of the Mummies; because his mouth is pure, his hands are pure. Come, come in peace...[2323]

Dr. Richard Hooker of Washington State University translates the pertinent parts of BD 125 thus: I have given bread to the hungry man, and water to the thirsty man,

And clothes to the naked man, and a boat to the boatless..

Moreover, it is an interesting "coincidence" that the divine scribe Taht-An (Thoth) in the Book of the Dead is styled by Birch as "Mati," while, of course, Jesus's holy scribe is "Mathias" or "Matthew." When we go to Budge's synopsis of BD 125, we see the following: The words which are to be uttered by the deceased when he cometh to the hall of Maati, which separeth him from his sins, and which maketh him to see God, the Lord of mankind.[2324]

The word mati or maati, in fact, is the plural for "truth," meaning "double right and truth" or symbolizing "the two goddesses of Truth, who probably represent Isis and Nephthys."[2325] As we can see, the similarities between Matthew's gospel and the BD are striking and important.

Concerning the synoptic gospels, in History of Early Christian Literature in the First Three Centuries, Dr. Gustav Kruger, a professor of Church History at the University of Giessen, states, "All three Gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and their text can hardly have received its present shape before the second half of the second century."[2326] As stated, the canonical gospels as we have them do not clearly appear in the historical record until the end of the second century, and there is not even a hint of them earlier than that. What we discover, therefore, is that these texts were created during the second century, with the input of Alexandrian scholarship. Indeed, regarding the Gospel of John, Dr. Kruger asserts, "The author was a Jew, trained in the ideas of Alexandrian religious philosophy."[2327] As shown, beginning with Eusebius, not a few people have averred that the canonical gospels originated with the allegorical works of the Alexandrian Therapeuts, so this Alexandrian attribution of John would be sensible as well.

Regarding the Gospel of John and its Egyptian origins, in The Journal of Theological Studies, Granger remarks: Now it is instructive to note that Salome, who plays so prominent a part in the Gospel according to the Egyptians, is the mother of St John, and that the same Gnostic circles in which this Gospel was current, were also those in which we hear for the first time of the Fourth Gospel. That is to say, the Fourth Gospel comes to us from the hands of the Alexandrine Gnostics. The system of Valentinus is really a somewhat fanciful commentary upon the opening chapters of St John's Gospel. Heracleon, the first great commentator upon St John, was both a Gnostic and at the same time was really the master of Origen. Now the key to the interpretation of the Fourth Gospel is to be found in the Gnostic ideas which underlie the Poimandres, ideas to which Heracleon furnishes a clue...[2328]

As demonstrated, the Poimandres may have been one of the Therapeutan texts at the basis of Christian writings. In the Poimandres, then, we have a connection to John, as well as to Church father Origen, who, again, was influenced by the Valentinian Gnostic Heracleon. Although Origen appears to have been at odds with Heracleon, rather than a willing disciple, his mentor Clement Alexandrinus (Stromata, 4.9) called Heracleon "the most distinguished of the school of Valentinians"[2329] and appears to have admired the Gnostic. Coptic expert Dr. Aziz S. Atiya (1898-1988), a professor at the University of Utah, remarks that Heracleon "seems to have made a large contribution to Origen's great Commentary on John (started c. 227), which sought to explain the Fourth Gospel within the framework of orthodox teaching."[2330] Dr. Atiya concludes, "Clement and Origen may both be seen in this respect as the theological descendants of Heracleon." It is interesting to note that Heracleon was the "first great commentator upon St. John," in consideration of the fact that the gospel ascribed to John as we have it did not clearly emerge in the historical record until around 176/8 AD/CE, precisely when Heracleon flourished.

Regarding the relationship between the Gnostic "heretic" Valentinus and the gospel of John, the Encyclopedia Britannica remarks: ...we cannot be far wrong in suspecting that here already we find Valentinus to have been influenced by the prologue of the fourth Gospel (we also find the probably Johannine names Monogenes and Parakletos in the series of aeons)....

It has already been seen clearly that Valentinian Gnosticism affected the nearest approach of all the Gnostic sects to the Catholic Church. Valentinus's own life indicates that he for a long time sought to remain within the official Church, and had at first no idea of founding a community of his own. Many compromises of his theories point the same way. The Johannine tendencies of his doctrine of the aeons (Logos, Zoe, Aletheia, Parakletos)...the adoption of the Christian baptism-all this, and perhaps more, indicates a definite and deliberate approach towards the doctrine of the Church.

These Gnostics, as in the case of most of the other Gnostic sects, possessed their own peculiar holy writings and books, but they also made a great use in their own circle of the canon of the Christian Church, especially the canon of the New Testament and-though with a few reservations-of the Old Testament.... Later Valentinian Gnosticism delighted in making use of the Johannine Gospel as a crowning testimony... the later Valentinian Herakleon wrote a detailed exposition of the whole Gospel [of John].[2331]

It is noteworthy that the EB asserts Valentinus to have been an orthodox Christian and his Gnosticism to be considered the closest to Catholicism. Although it is commonly believed that Valentinus must have been influenced by the gospel of John, if we analyze the situation scientifically, we find that Valentinus appears in the historical record before John's gospel, and logic would dictate that if there was any borrowing, it occurred in the opposite direction of what has been suggested by the EB and elsewhere. In fact, Church fathers Irenaeus and Jerome stated that John was written in refutation of Gnostics, particularly Cerinthus, who, contrary to popular belief, likely lived well into the second century. Again, the connection between the Valentinian Heracleon and Origen, who lived at Alexandria, provides a smooth transition between Gnostic and Orthodox Christianity.

We have already seen many elements in the gospel of John that find their parallels in the Egyptian religion, including: the Logos doctrine; John the Baptist; the god as the "living water"; the numerous references to the "bread of life"; the feast with the wine; the raising of Lazarus; the two Marys; the many scriptural similarities; and the healing of the blind with spittle. Another parallel occurs with Mary Magdalene seeking Jesus's body (Jn 20:13-17), which corresponds to Isis's search for Osiris's body. John's gospel in particular also makes much of the various cosmic epithets of Christ, as we might expect of a gospel with Egyptian connections, as these same concepts flourished in Egyptian religion, especially as concerns Osiris and Horus. Moreover, like Horus and Osiris, at John 10:30 Christ and the Father are one. While Osiris is the "Lord of Resurrections," Jesus himself is the resurrection, as found only in John. Also in the gospel of John (Jn 21:2-3) appears a post-resurrection scene with seven of the disciples in a boat, while in CT Sps. 400 and 401, we find the deceased invoking, "O you seven spirits, the ferrymen of the sky."[2332] Moreover, in De Corona ("The Chaplet"), chapter 8, Tertullian discusses Christ "girt about with a linen towel" as at John 12:1-5, remarking that the towel is "a garment specially sacred to Osiris."[2333] In addition, the use of the word diakonos or "deacon" is the same in both Philo and the gospel of John.

Furthermore, it is also interesting that, per Conybeare's analysis of a phrase used by Philo to describe the manner in which the Therapeuts reclined near each other during a banquet, "the phrase has only this formal and technical sense in John 13. 23."[2334] Conybeare continues by stating that the term "only means that John as the beloved disciple reclined next to Jesus." This phrase would thus indicate a connection between the gospel and the Therapeuts, if the meaning by Conybeare is understood that it only appears in this manner in antiquity in Philo and John's gospel. Since Conybeare's "Excursus" is meant to be an exhaustive survey of the word and phrase usages in the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo, such exclusivity would indeed appear to be the meaning of his remarks.

Concerning the various themes within John that appear to be straight out of Egyptian religion, Tim Callahan notes: That the Egyptian motifs in both Luke and John are all from the cycle of Osiris, Isis and Horus would seem to indicate that the reason for incorporating them could either be the result of the influence of the already flourishing Hellenized cult of Isis or part of a deliberate attempt to co-opt this rival's powerful imagery.[2335]

From all the evidence, it appears that the gospel of John is an Egyptian composition created at Alexandria and largely based on Egyptian religion and Alexandrian philosophy.

The Memphite Theology.

The Egyptian precedent for parts of the gospel of John may also be found in a text called "the Memphite Theology," which, Hare states, "clearly ascribes a intellectual and volitional motive to creation, with a focus on the heart or mind of the creator and the manifestation of thought in language and material reality."[2336] Hare continues: For this reason the [Memphite] theology has been cited as an antecedent to the first verses of both the Book of Genesis and the Gospel of John...[2337]

The Memphite Theology is based on the text found on the "Shabaka Stone" or "Shabaqo Stela," which was created around 710 BCE but preserves a much older tradition. This text contains an account of the father god Ptah creating humans "through the power of his heart and speech." Regarding the Memphite Theology, Dr. Tobin remarks: ...The highly abstract nature of the text gives distinct evidence that the Egyptian intellect was capable of dealing with material that would later form the subject of philosophical and theological speculation in the Jewish and Christian worlds.[2338]

Even if the Memphite Theology dates to no earlier than the eight century BCE, it would nevertheless demonstrate an early Egyptian conceptualization of "the word," providing a possible precedent for the idea as found in later Jewish, Gnostic, Stoic and Christian ideology.

In any event, the gospel of John was apparently composed also to incorporate the popular doctrines of both Plato and Philo, such that their followers would be more inclined toward the new faith. In consideration of the emphasis by Philo on the Word or Logos, we may suppose that the Gospel of John with its Logos-heavy prologue was devised in significant part not only to counter Gnostics but also to attract Philo followers, including, apparently, those within the Church at Alexandria.

Who Wrote John?

If the gospel of John is an Egyptian text composed at Alexandria in the late second century in response to Gnostics, then St. John the apostle could not have been its author. Indeed, as we have seen, even in ancient times the apostolic attribution of the gospel of John was denied. Regarding the "first serious and able criticism" in modern times of the received view that the Gospel of John was written by the apostle John at Ephesus, in An Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Dr. James Drummond relates that it was Rev. Dr. Karl Gottlieb Bretschneider's "Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolarum Joannis Apostoli Indole et Origine, published in 1820, and written in Latin, as the author assures us, that he might not give any offence to the 'unlearned plebs,' and that his book might be read by foreign theologians."[2339] From these remarks, it is clear that much important information concerning Christianity has been suppressed and hidden from the masses, and that such information would be considered harmful to the faith, even though it may be factual and truthful. Continuing his discussion of Rev. Bretschneider's thesis, Dr. Drummond relates: ...the conclusion is reached that the Gospel was fraudulently written by a Gentile in the name of John in the beginning or middle of the second century, and that the author most probably lived in Egypt, whence the Gospel was brought to Rome by Gnostics.[2340]

Although his argument was "formidable enough," the traditionalists essentially forced Bretschneider (1776-1848) to retract "his objections," leaving the issue as it was previously. Moreover, Bretschneider's retraction was evidently the result of him being forced from his job for the mere publishing of this position contrary to the received Christian history. Bretschneider's haranguement was followed by the disgraceful treatment of Dr. David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874), who lost his occupation because in his book The Life of Jesus Critically Examined he dared to interpret the gospel story as myth, averring that John's was the most mythical of the gospels.[2341]

Renowned theologian and New Testament scholar Dr. F.C. Baur (1792-1860) likewise did not ascribe to John an apostolic authorship, dating the gospel to the latter half of the second century. In History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred, Judge Charles B. Waite (d. 1909) provided an in-depth analysis demonstrating the same conclusions, including showing the date of 178 AD/CE for the gospel's unmistakable appearance in the literary record.

Concerning the case for John having been written at Alexandria, New Testament scholar and professor of Divinity Rev. Dr. Charles Kingsley Barrett (b. 1917) states: ...Undoubtedly there is evidence pointing in that direction. The earliest certain use of the gospel is found in Egypt (the Rylands and Egerton papyri, and the Valentinians). Internal evidence (it has been held) confirms the external. Alexandria, "the home of Philo and the authors of the Corpus Hermeticum,...was a likely place for the development of a Christian Logos-doctrine" (Sanders, Early Church, 40). The hypothesis that John was written in Alexandria, the home both of gnostics and of a large Jewish population, would account for the twofold polemic of the gospel against both docetic and Judaizing tendencies, and perhaps also for the polemic against the followers of John the Baptist. Finally, since it seems that the church of Alexandria was not in its earliest days strictly orthodox, it is easy to understand that a gospel proceeding from such a source should at first be looked upon with suspicion by orthodox Christians.[2342]

Indeed, this perspective has not been isolated, with Cambridge professor Rev. Joseph Newbould Sanders also concluding that the "copious evidence for gnostic, particularly Valentinian, use" constituted an indication of "an Alexandrian origin for the Fourth Gospel itself."[2343]

Regarding this subject, Dr. Charles E. Hill, a professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, likewise says: ...The Gospel appears to have been used first of all by the Gnostics, and particularly by the Alexandrians... It was the Valentinians who first ascribed it to "John."[2344]

Despite the inference that "Valentinus" commented on John, Drummond admits that, in reality, "Irenaeus...in the last quarter of the second century, is our first witness [to John]."[2345] In fact, it was not Valentinus but his later disciples, such as Heracleon, apparently, who "first ascribed it to John," while the first language that seems to come from John's gospel can be found in the Ad Autoclytum (2.22) of Bishop Theophilus (c. 176). Either Irenaeus could not have been the "first witness," or he did not ascribe the gospel to John. Oddly enough, even though it was said to have been written against the Gnostic "heretic" Cerinthus, there have been those, such as Gaius of Rome around 200 AD/CE, who have claimed that John was in fact written by Cerinthus.[2346] The impression given is that the gospel emerged not long before Gaius's era and that Cerinthus too flourished near that time. Other individuals who ascribed the Johannine gospel to Cerinthus were the "Alogi" mentioned by Epiphanius. While the Alogi are treated as a sect, their name may simply mean "against Logos," symbolized by their rejection of the apostolic authorship of the Gospel of John.

Since the Old Testament was translated into Greek at Alexandria, producing the Septuagint, and since it was the Septuagint, not the Hebrew bible, that was mainly used by the New Testament writers, it would make further sense to connect the New Testament to Alexandria. Moreover, at a certain point Jews stopped using the Septuagint, which was maintained by Christians and attached to the New Testament as part of their "Holy Bible." With all the factors combined, the importance of Alexandria on the Christian effort is obvious and critical to a scientific analysis of the origins of Christianity.

The destruction of Alexandria as a great seat of intellectualism can be squarely blamed upon the Christian mob, who rampaged through the streets, devastating marvelous Pagan sacred sites, burning the Serapeum and other sources of learning and culture, and killing all those who stood in their way. Such depravity included the hideous murder of the last outstanding example of Alexandrian erudition, the female sage Hypatia (d. 415), who was torn from her vehicle, stripped, flayed and burned alive by Christians. A viler act one could hardly imagine, representing the defining moment of the Death of Paganism and signaling the beginning of the Dark Ages under Christian dominance. This disgraceful, violent and heinous oppression lasted until a mere century and a half or so ago, with people in England, for instance, still being put in prison for "blasphemy." In some ways, we remain in this violent state of oppression, with hostile people viciously attacking others over Christian doctrine, as well as over such facts as popularized here. For those who may tend to forget what we have endured and made through in our movement toward greater enlightenment, we need only remember Hypatia, the great symbol of Alexandrian sagacity and the longstanding legacy of Egypt.

Conclusion.

"...the study of Egyptian mythology will throw more light upon the restrictive customs of the Jews, the allusions of the prophets, and the early history of the Christian church than that of any other country."

William R. Cooper, The Serpent Myths of Ancient Egypt (73) "...it would seem that in Egypt we had the first truly Christian people, without record of an initial struggle between heathenry and the Gospel. The blessed Mary had replaced Isis, the little babe Jesus had replaced Horus, the passion of Christ had superseded the suffering and dying of Osiris, the Christian cross had been set up instead of the 'Tet' or fourfold cross with flail and crook in right and left..."

Rev. Dr. William Norman Guthrie, The Gospel of Osiris (II) "...the principles and precepts of the Osiran theology of Egypt are virtually identical in content and application to the principles and precepts of Christianity as they present themselves in the Jesus saga."

Dr. Richard A. Gabriel, Jesus the Egyptian (2) When analyzing the Egyptian religion and its evident influence upon Christianity, it is necessary to recall a number of important facts, including that the Egyptians practiced a sort of "polytheistic monotheism" or "monotheistic polytheism," rather than just polytheism, as is widely perceived. In reality, Egyptian religion appears to have incorporated every major theology, such as monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, monism and henotheism. Reflecting the complex nature of the Egyptian religion, over 100 years ago Swiss Egyptologist Dr. Edouard Naville remarked, "Let us remember that we have not yet unravelled all the intricacies of the Egyptian mythology..."[2347] The study of Egyptian religion and mythology, in fact, has only been in full swing for a couple of centuries. Prior to that time, not enough was known to make the correspondences found in this book, although the works of Diodorus, Plutarch and others from the ancient world did allow for some Egyptian mythology to be factored into the comparative-religion studies of scholars such as Charles Dupuis and Count Volney beginning at the end of the 18th century. In fact, it was largely because of Dupuis's fascinating research and conclusions that French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) descended upon Egypt with not only his troops but also his team of Europe's most skilled scholars and scientists.[2348] The subsequent discovery of the Rosetta Stone by Napoleon's team unlocked an entire new world that has since been mined to reveal gold nuggets which have only come to light in time and with increasing scientific exploration. Hence, we are just now starting to see the implications of these finds, although certain courageous scholars of earlier eras deserve immense credit for discerning widespread parallels between the Egyptian and Christian religions without benefit of modern scientific methods, discoveries and breakthroughs. In the end, the Egyptian religion rates as highly symbolic and extraordinarily vast, and it may not be unreasonable to assert that, in general, virtually every religious or spiritual idea may be found in some form or another within this ideology, including those appearing in the later Christianity.

A "Unique Divine Revelation?"

Although portrayed as "unique divine revelation," Christianity was neither "new nor strange" but had existed "from the beginning," as declared by Church fathers Eusebius and Augustine in a moment of inspired candor that likely revealed more than they intended. These comments by the Church fathers were apparently meant to demonstrate the eternal nature of the Christian faith but, in actuality, explained why, if Christianity constituted "unique revelation," so many of its tenets could already be found around the known world for centuries to millennia. Indeed, as we can see from the numerous correspondences, if Christianity is to be considered "divine revelation," then so too must be the important Egyptian religion upon which much of the Christian effort was palpably founded. In reality, since it preceded Christianity by millennia, the Egyptian religion could lay claim to being the original "divine revelation," closer to the truth and less corrupted. As demonstrated in this present work, there exists good reason to assert that, rather than representing a new disclosure from God, Christianity is in actuality a rehash of older religions, including and especially the Egyptian. In this regard, we have thus far explored numerous significant instances where the Egyptian and Christian religions converge.

Nevertheless, the task of outlining all of the correlations between the two faiths has proved itself so overwhelming that few people have been willing or able to undertake it. Even the great Sir Dr. E.A. Wallis Budge demurred on this exceptional effort, declaring: Interesting, however, as such an investigation would be, no attempt has been made in this work to trace out the influence of ancient Egyptian religious beliefs and mythology on Christianity, for such an undertaking would fill a comparatively large volume.[2349]

Such statements should have spurred a whole field of study, but, as we know too well, vested interests clamped down and rendered this worthy endeavor nearly impossible. We are finally at a time, however, when implausible pabulum will be scrutinized scientifically and revealed as such, so that we may remove the delusion preventing further evolution.

Gods Truly Walked the Earth?

Although Christianity attempts to set itself apart by claiming its story to have truly taken place in history, the Egyptian religion too was supposedly rooted in history, which would make it true as well, by this same reasoning. As we know from ancient writers, the important Egyptian god Osiris was also believed to have been a real man who walked the earth and who was responsible for the civilizing and salvation of mankind. In fact, Osiris is depicted as traveling far and wide in his quest to bring goodness and light to humanity, making him one of the best-known gods of all time. Not only were the deities Osiris, Isis and Horus highly popular, but their sacred sites and relics, including numerous temples and tombs, could be found throughout Egypt and elsewhere, wherever there was a priesthood. Thus, again, to insist that only the Christian drama and its characters are "true" and represent "divine revelation" can been viewed as a manifestation of cultural bias, rather than reality.

In this regard, to question the reality of Osiris and Isis as people, as well as gods, might constitute a sin as egregious to Egyptians as doubting the historical veracity of Jesus Christ is to many Christians today. Indeed, it should be kept in mind that the Egyptians took their religion very seriously and did not readily accept blasphemy against it, being every bit as pious about their faith as Christians are now. In describing this Egyptian piety, James Bonwick recounts the observations of the French Catholic priest Abbe Noel Antoine Pluche (1688-1761), who wrote The History of the Heavens: Abbe Pluche has no manner of doubt about the honest belief of the Egyptians in the simple story of Osiris, their individual as well as national benefactor.... He thinks that even supposing the leaders knew something beyond the popular conceptions, "it would have been dangerous for the Egyptian priests to attempt undeceiving the people, and to divert them from the pleasing thought that Osiris and Isis were two real persons."

He adduces a proof of this danger. "The actions of Osiris and Isis," says he, "were incessantly mentioned. The people believed what they saw and what they heard. The perpetual recitals of as many historical facts, as there were figures and ceremonies exhibited, completed their error, and rendered them invincible." His conclusion was: "The people in their frantic enthusiasm would have torn in pieces any that should dare to deny the history of Osiris and Isis."....[2350]

The fervor with which the Osirian religion was held may have also occurred at certain times as a result of scriptures such as the following in CT Sp. 317, where the speaker as Osiris, expressing a sentiment similar to that found in the Bible and Koran, states: ...As for anyone who is (due) to be decapitated who shall oppose himself to me; as for anyone who cries aloud who shall come opposing me; as for any god or any rebel who shall oppose me or whom I shall find on my path, the Aqdw-spirits who are before me shall seize him, the aSmw-spirits who are behind me shall devour him...[2351]

Like the Abrahamic religions, it would appear that terrorizing believers into submission was not unknown within the Osirian religion as well.

Obviously, the fervent belief in a god who allegedly "walked the earth" is dependent not on absolute truth or reality but often upon the fashion of the day. The Egyptian gods are now taken to be mythical, despite the ardent beliefs of their hundreds of millions of worshippers over a period of several thousand years. The same may be said in the future concerning Jesus Christ-in fact, the precise machination of demotion under another religion and god is already happening with Jesus, as he is depicted within the fast-growing Islam as a mere mortal prophet, rather than the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Son of God.

In any event, with such fervent belief the Egyptian religion is not to be taken lightly, with culturally biased dismissals disparaging the Egyptians as mere "heathens" and "pagans," while Christians hold up their own religion as sacrosanct "truth" and "divine revelation."

The "Horus Christian Class" Dismissed?

The ancient Egyptian Christians themselves apparently possessed no such prejudices, as they readily identified Horus and Osiris with Jesus, and Isis with Mary, important and fascinating facts that one would think would garner far more attention than they do. This fact of the identification of Jesus with Osiris and Horus in ancient times is evidenced by customs, rituals, myths, texts, images and other artifacts. Some of these Egypto-Christian artifacts are quite impressive, as reported by the amateur Egyptologist and devout Christian William R. Cooper, who provided examples of what he called the "Horus Christian class."

As part of this "Horus Christian class," Dr. Meltzer names the following: The iconography of Horus either influenced or was appropriated in early Christian art. Isis and the baby Horus may often be seen as the precursor for Mary and the infant Jesus; Horus dominating the beasts may have a counterpart in Christ Pantokrator doing the same; and Horus spearing a serpent may survive in the iconography of Saint George defeating the dragon.[2352]

After compiling his own list of artifacts demonstrating Egypto-Christian themes, the pious Cooper concludes: These illustrations will now, I think, suffice for the purpose that I have in view-the purpose of proving that the works of art, the ideas, the expressions, and the heresies of the first four centuries of the Christian era cannot be well studied without a right comprehension of the nature and influence of the Horus myth; and that it becomes every student, or at all events every expositor of the Book of books, to examine this myth, and work out its operations for himself. Of its immense antiquity there can be no reasonable doubt; equally so can there be none of the extent to which the myth has been modified by the Classic, Jewish, and Christian theologies, although we are not yet in a position to separate the true from the false, and to assign to each interpolation or interpretation its proper place in the chronology of mythology. We cannot, I repeat, ignore these facts. We have, as Christians, no reason to be afraid of them. As philosophical scholars we are bound to make use of the materials brought ready to our hands in the records of the past, and as true believers in the co-eternal divinity and redeemership of our blessed Lord, we should be impelled by our responsibilities to be the first in the field...[2353]

The young lawyer Cooper truly believed that by bringing forth these proofs of the merging of the Egyptian and Christian religions he was somehow presenting a defense of the Christian faith, and he was extremely disappointed by the weak reaction he received from the elite scholars and clergy to whom he circulated his ground-breaking work. Again, responding at last to his call to study these intriguing connections, respected modern Egyptologist Dr. Witt remarked that Cooper's "words are still true."[2354]

Unfortunately, Cooper passed away "in exile," as he put it, at the age of 35, shortly after presenting his startling findings to England's finest, with flaccid results. Thus, he did not live to see his work attain to fruition, and these significant correlations continued to be suppressed and ignored by the mainstream, although gaining momentum with such diligent and daring individuals as Gerald Massey, whose massive works nevertheless remain mostly unknown in the field of Egyptology today. From the present in-depth, scientific analysis, however, we have discovered that Massey was substantially correct in both his facts and his conclusions, once again vindicating a much-maligned scholar whose works have therefore largely proved themselves to be accurate, as we have seen abundantly.

Before and since Massey's time, those who have ventured into the field of comparative religion and mythology, and who have dared to include Christianity in their analysis, have frequently been subjected to ridicule or worse. The illogical implication of such abuse heaped upon those who discuss Christianity as mythology is that the Jewish culture from which the Christian religion largely sprang, according to believers, possessed no mythology whatsoever, as virtually the only culture of significance to make such an unlikely claim. Yet, from the experiences of Cooper and many others, it is obvious that society's elite-including numerous churchmen-have known about the research demonstrating elements of Egyptian mythology within Christianity, but that this information has been rigorously censored. Otherwise, in an open environment it would be inexplicable why Cooper's brilliant insights were ignored and his fascinating lead left unfollowed, particularly in light of what Budge later stated about such Egyptian-Christian comparisons filling a "large volume."

Dangerous Endeavors and Occupational Hazards.

In consideration of the very real danger involved in exposing information against the mainstream that has dominated over the past many centuries, previous reticence concerning the Egyptian origins of Christianity may in actuality be understandable. In the history of promoting Christianity, while suppressing information and acts perceived as deleterious to the faith, there have appeared numerous bogus artifacts and forged texts, along with all manner of deceit, calumny, slander and violence, including beatings, torture, slavery, murders, wars and wholesale slaughter. For centuries, hundreds of thousands were brutally tortured and murdered because of their alleged "unbelief" in biblical doctrine. Even in more modern times prominent dissenters have suffered for purported "heresy" and "blasphemy." When they challenged the status quo, people like Dr. David Strauss and Dr. Karl Bretschneider lost their occupations, while others such as Rev. Robert Taylor were imprisoned for questioning Holy Writ. Today, those who try to expose information as found here are labeled every sort of vitriolic and libelous epithet imaginable, while in fact they too are risking their own life and limb. In such an environment, it is no wonder that the information contained in this book has been suppressed and has not made it into popular literature and the minds of the public. Also, without the support of mainstream academia and media, any such endeavor could turn out to be a financially challenging "labor of love," and not a few maverick thinkers have died impoverished for their efforts. In any event, the odds have been clearly against those who step outside the box and extend above the curve.

In the past centuries to the present in some circles, scientific theories have thus been dismissed and censored purely because they contradict the Bible and/or Judeo-Christian tradition. Biblical prejudice and irrational devotion-that which upholds the Bible for no rational reason and which is called "Bibliolatry"-has allowed for credible scientific ideas and theories to be roundly dismissed. As Massey stated, many individuals of the past have been bibliolaters first and scholars second. The toning down or omission of anything that might offend Judeo-Christian sensibilities, has clearly led to censorship of important information-and this censorial pressure has often created a pronounced divide between religious scholars and others such as, in this case, Egyptologists, with the result that the twain has rarely met, leaving us to make the connections ourselves in what at times amount to Herculean efforts.

As yet another example of such censorship, regarding the Philonic text "On the Embassy to Gaius" (De Legatione Ad Gaium) Conybeare remarks: Thus time and Christian editors have truncated the De Legatione in a threefold way. Firstly, a good part of the second book has been removed because it ran counter to Christian traditions regarding Pontius Pilate....[2355]

Hence, again, censors have removed material threatening to the faith-a common occurrence that reduced much of the ancient world to rubble, the wrecked pieces of which we are only now putting back together.

The inability to think outside of the biblical box, even by the most erudite and renowned scholars, is further displayed in the musings of Sir Wilkinson, one of the greatest Egyptologists of all time. In contemplating the nature of Egyptian religion, beginning with the possible "Sabean worship"-in other words, astrotheology, especially star worship-Wilkinson wondered if the Egyptians were not first sun worshippers who eventually "learnt to consider the divine mind of the Creator superior to the work He had created." Wilkinson goes on to state that it is not possible to "settle this question," with it remaining "uncertain if that was the primitive mode of worship in Egypt, or if their religion was corrupted from the originally pure idea communicated to them by the early descendants of Noah, who established themselves in the valley of the Nile."[2356] According to Wilkinson and many others, therefore, the Israelite religion was superior to that of the Egyptians, who could only attain to true knowledge of God through following the "chosen people." However, if the mind is so clouded by fabulous tales such as Noah's Ark, how can it be clear enough to interpret data properly? Moreover, in more modern times we know that the biblical Jews borrowed much of their religion and mythology from Egypt; therefore, it could only constitute bias and ignorance to suggest that the Egyptians were "impure" or "corrupted" from the "purity" of "Noah's descendants," thereby believing the hegemony of the Bible for no sound scientific reason. Such was the reigning atmosphere even among intellectuals, scholars and academics prior to the past century or so.

Scholars in general can also be notoriously cautious, particularly when it comes to stepping on the toes of mainstream institutions, especially those of a religious bent-and there have been many such establishments, including major universities like Yale and Harvard, both of which started as Christian divinity schools.[2357] Numerous other institutions in the Christian world were either founded specifically as Christian universities and colleges or had seminaries attached to them. As stated on the Princeton Theological Seminary website, regarding early American education: Within the last quarter of the eighteenth century, all learning...could be adequately taught and studied in the schools and colleges, nearly all of which were church initiated.[2358]

As yet another example of scholarly timidity in the face of Bibliolatry, while discussing the similarities between Egypt and Israel, Dr. Beyerlin, in collaboration with Dr. Brunner, remarks that Egypt and Israel share some striking similarities-indeed, his book on the Near Eastern religious texts and the Old Testament is designed to show various correlations-to the point where he states, "Egypt and Israel became great in the same area of the ancient Near East, with similar conceptions and similar thought-forms."[2359] Yet, he feels the need to refrain from making any firm conclusions as concerns "real or apparent consonances." Beyerlin even goes so far as to say, "Is it not important to realize that each of the two religions inhabits a self-contained world of its own?" Nevertheless, he also states, parenthetically, "In any case, for many centuries Egypt ruled Palestine or influenced it culturally-with interruptions, over a period lasting for two millennia." At the same, time, we are told that, other than one text, the "Teaching of Amenemope," there is no real evidence showing "a work from Egyptian being taken over in Palestine." While it may be so that we do not necessarily possess other texts identical to both nations in different languages, nonetheless we find, as Beyerlin earlier says, "similar conceptions and similar thought-forms," which, when combined with the fact that Egypt influenced culture in Palestine for almost 2,000 years, we can be fairly certain that there was a substantial amount of exchange in religious ideology. It is this unfortunate type of obfuscation that has prevented any meaningful movement in the field of comparative religion when it includes ideologies currently held to be "true" by significant numbers of people.

At the same time, we have also seen that, in order for individual texts and even entire genres of literature to survive they needed to be treated with disdain and to be denounced, such as the Hermetic literature. Certain detractors, in fact, were instrumental in preserving the arguments of their opponents, which would have otherwise been "lost," as a result of deliberate destruction. Because of cherished beliefs and biases, entire premises have either been overlooked or routinely rejected, such as, for instance, trying to find influences from the Hermetic literature on Christianity. Because of entrenched institutions, there has often been neither the will nor the financial incentive to encourage such studies. On the contrary, ensconced academicians have been discouraged in such endeavors because of this lack of support and turning of a blind eye. This neglected research has then been left to "outsiders" who enjoy no such support or imprimatur stamped upon their work by mainstream authorities, making it much easier for them to be dismissed, ridiculed and ignored.

Modern scholars, in fact, appear to go out of their way to avoid comparison to Christianity or the use of Christian terminology, although on occasion they drop hints of related subjects in need of further study, as demonstrated here. Exhibiting the wariness applied to scholarship involving religion, which has certainly crossed the line into censorship on numerous occasions, in "Christ versus Apollo in Early Byzantine Kourion?," Dr. Hans Hauben, a professor of Ancient History at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, cautions: The preceding study reminds us of the necessity to handle matters of religious history with extreme care, especially when confronted with at first glance unexpected or strange developments. More than in other circumstances, fantasy should be firmly restrained to avoid that early believed and increasingly repeated misunderstandings go their own way before ending up as a quasi historical facts.[2360]

While they themselves may not wish to go out on limbs, professional scholars sometimes leave breadcrumb trails to follow, often as the last sentence in their books, as if the subject of comparing the Egyptian and Christian religions were on their minds the whole time. As one exception to the rule, Egyptologist Dr. Morenz is somewhat more forthcoming, including, for example, in his opus Egyptian Religion a section entitled, "Contribution to Old and New Testaments," in which he says, "The influence of Egyptian religion on posterity is mainly felt through Christianity and its antecedents."[2361] In his exploration of the influence on the Old Testament, Morenz describes a sentence appearing in a document called the "Instruction of Ptah-hotep" regarding not altering sacred texts: "Take no word away, and add nothing thereto, and put not one thing in the place of another..."[2362] Morenz follows this discussion by saying that "this sentence found its way to Palestine together with Egyptian wisdom literature." Indeed, the sentence sounds very much like the warning at the end of the New Testament Book of Revelation (22:18-19). Morenz further remarks that the "similarity of genres... is also found in the familiar parallels between Egyptian and Israelite wisdom literature, which in general may be regarded as a gift of Egypt."[2363] With such hints, would not a person passionate about these parallels between Egyptian and Israelite literature go on a quest to discover them?

Morenz concludes his work with a telling paragraph that once again summarizes the influence of the Egyptian religion on Christianity, mentioning the Isis-Mary parallels as well as the similarity between Egyptian monkishness and Christian monasticism. He ends by saying, "All this entitles us to the opinion that Egypt played its part in the efforts of Christians to achieve an understanding of God and his works, which are eternal."[2364] This last part appears to be an appeasement for any readers who might by this time be questioning Morenz's Christian piety based on his previous remarks definitively stating that the Egyptian religion influenced the New Testament and early Christian theology. In view of what had happened previously to scholars who spoke out in a manner too frank, it is possible that Morenz's concern was not simply paranoia. Yet, later, in a note this German scholar cautions against "exaggerations" in seeing survivals of the Egyptian religion in Christianity, of which he too was guilty, remarking: This admission does not imply that one cannot reckon with such survivals, but one should not seek them out.[2365]

With this seemingly fearful warning we are left with the paradox that, while many aspects of Egyptian religion are in need of further study vis-a-vis their relationship to Christianity, we should not seek out any parallels that may be revealed by such scholarship! Again, we find this sort of tiptoeing and timidity in numerous books on the subject.

"Nolo Comprehendere"[2366]

It is noteworthy that much of the important research regarding comparative religion and mythology has been done in French, German and other languages, and is thus not easily accessible to the English-speaking public. Significant sources may be difficult or impossible to obtain, as well as in foreign languages, and the expense and complication of finding and translating these may be prohibitive for the individual. In this regard, it is stunning to discover very little information in English on the highly important Egyptian winter solstice, for example, when in Dr. Brugsch's German notebooks there are multiple pages concerning the Winterwende. Indeed, in this example of pertinent information not being readily available in English, from Brugsch's work with the original Egyptian images and hieroglyphs, combined with many other essentials, such as the words of Plutarch and Macrobius, we know that the Egyptian sun god was brought out as a "babe" in a "manger" or "ark" on the winter solstice. Yet, these salient facts are not extensively understood or are purposely ignored and forgotten by mainstream writers in English.

As another, more modern example of important contentions in another language that may not be easily found in English, turning to the Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, which took place in September 2004, we find a discussion in French by Egyptologist Dr. Omaima M. El-Shal of the Institut de Papyrologie et d'Egyptologie and Fayoum University, regarding the correlation between Osiris and "Le Christ," as well as "Isis et Horus-la Vierge et l'enfant" or "Isis and Horus-the Virgin and the Infant." Under these two categories, Dr. El-Shal remarks: There might be a symbolic relationship between the god Osiris and (the) Christ. It would have been achieved through five common factors based on the topology, theology, history, idealism and finally the significance of the two "myths."...

The iconography of the goddess Isis breastfeeding her son the god Horus is reminiscent of the Virgin and Child.[2367]