Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World
A Work of Reclamation and Restitution in Twelve Books
Book Twelve - Sut and Horus as Historic Characters in the Canonical Gospels
The Gospel story of the devil taking Jesus, or the Christ, up into an exceeding high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them could be seen, and of the contention on the summit, is originally a legend of the astronomical mythos which, in common with so many others, has been converted into “history”. As legend it can be explained by means of the Egyptian wisdom. [Page 832] As “history” it is, of course, miraculous, if nothing else. Satan and Jesus are the representatives of Sut and Horus, the contending twins of darkness and light, of drought and fertility, who strove for supremacy in the various phenomena of external nature, and in several celestial localities belonging to the mythology.
In the Ritual (ch. 110) the struggle is described as taking place upon the mount, that is, “the mountain in the midst of the earth”, or the mountain of Amenta, which “reaches up to the sky”, and which in the solar mythos stood at the point of equinox where the conflict was continued and the twins were reconciled year after year. The equinox was figured at the summit of the mount on the ecliptic, and the scene of strife was finally configurated as a fixture in the constellation of the Gemini, the sign of the twin-brothers who for ever fought and wrestled “up and down the garden”, first one, then the other being uppermost during the two halves of the year, or of night and day. The mountain of the equinox “in the midst of the earth” joined the portion of Sut to the portion of Horus at this the point midway betwixt the south and north. It was on the mountain of the equinox and only there the twins were reconciled for the time being by the star-god Shu (Rit., ch. 110) or by the earth-god Seb (text from Memphis). Sut the Satanic is described as seizing the good Horus in the desert of Amenta and carrying him to the top of the mount here called Mount Hetep, the place of peace, where the two contending powers are reconciled by Shu, according to the treaty made by Seb. Thus, episode after episode, the Gospel history can and will be traced to the original documents as matter of the Egyptian mysteries and astronomical mythology.
The battles of Sut and Horus are represented in both the apocryphal and canonical Gospels. In the Gospels of the Infancy there are two boys — the bad boy and the good boy. In this form the two born antagonists continue their altercation with a root-relationship to the Osirian mythos. Sut is the representative of evil, of darkness, drought, sterility, negation, and non-existence. It is his devilry to undo the good work that Horus does, like Satan sowing tares amongst the wheat. It was Sut who paralyzed the left arm of Osiris and held it bound in Sekhem (Rit., ch. 1). It is the express delight of the bad boy, the child of Satan, to destroy the works of Jesus, the child of light. There is one particularly enlightening illustration of the mythos reproduced as Märchen. The power of resurrection was imaged by the lifting of the arm from the mummy-bandages; Horus in Sekhem is the lifter of the arm. Whilst the arm is fettered in
death, Sut is triumphant over Horus in the dark. When Horus frees his arm, he raises the hand that was motionless (Rit., ch. 5). He strikes down Sut, or stabs him to the heart. The power of darkness, one form of which was Sut, is designated the “eater of the arm” (ch. 11). This act of the Osirian drama is rendered in the apocryphal Gospels by the bad boy persistently aiming at injuring the good boy’s arm or shoulder.
In the Gospel of pseudo-Matthew (29) the bad boy, who is called a son of Satan and the worker of iniquity, runs at Jesus and thrusts himself bodily against his shoulder with the intention of breaking or paralyzing his arm In the Gospel of Thomas the boy ran and thrust against the shoulder of Jesus [Page 833] (ch. 4). Again, the bad boy threw a stone and hit him on the shoulder (Gospel of Thomas, B. 2, ch. 4). Several times when this occurs the bad boy is smitten dead by Jesus, just as Sut is pierced to the heart by Horus. Other evidence might be cited from these Gospels to show that the bad boy who tries to destroy the arm of Jesus is one with Sut who renders the arm of Horus (or Osiris) powerless in Amenta.
This being established, we are enabled to identify Judas the betrayer of Jesus, his brother, with Sut the enemy of Horus. According to “the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy”, “In the same place” (with Lady Mary and her child Jesus), “there dwelt another woman whose son was vexed by Satan. He, Judas by name, whenever Satan obsessed him, bit all who approached him. He sought to bite the Lord Jesus, but he could not, yet he struck the right side of Jesus”. “Now this boy who struck Jesus and from whom Satan went out in the form of a dog, was Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him to the Jews” (ch. 35).
We now have the original matter with which to compare the remains, and the comparative process will prove that these “apocrypha” are not perversions of the canonical Gospels, but that they preserve traditions derived from the Kamite mythology and eschatology. This can be determined once for all by the contests of Horus with Sut, and by his warfare with the Apap-serpent or dragon, which are assigned to the child-Jesus, as they were previously ascribed to the child-Horus.
There are two types of evil, or, according to modern terminology, the devil, in the Kamite mysteries. One is zoomorphic, as the Apap-reptile, the other anthropomorphic, as Sut, the personal adversary of Osiris. Apap is the Evil One in the mythology; Sut is Satan the adversary in the eschatology. In the 108th chapter of the Ritual there is a curious fusion of Apap with Sut, the anthropomorphic type of Satan. The serpent of darkness, the old enemy of Osiris-Ra, is portrayed in the vignette as Apap, and spoken of in the text as Sut. After the battle “Sut is made to flee with a chain of steel upon him, and he is forced to disgorge all that he hath swallowed. Then Sut is made fast in his prison”. At the same time the serpent is described as “the bright one who cometh on his belly, his hind parts, and on the joints of his back”. To him
it is said, “Thou art pierced with hooks, as it was decreed against thee of old” (ch. 108). The battle here, betwixt Ra and Apap, or Sut, is finished on the horizon, that is, on the mount, from which the devil is hurled down defeated into the abyss. In the canonical Gospels, Jesus and Satan occupy the place of the two opponents Horus and the Apap, or Horus and Sut. The Herrut-reptile has been paralleled with the monster Herod; Satan is now to be compared with Sut. Sat=Satan in Egyptian is a name of the Evil One (Budge, Vocabulary, p. 268).
In Africa the primal curse was drought. Drought was a form of evil straight from nature. This was figured as the fiery dragon, “hellish Apap”, that was drowned by Horus in the inundation when he came as saviour to the land of Egypt in his little ark of the papyrus plant. Sut warred with Horus in the wilderness as representative of drought, when the “father of the inundation was athirst” (Rit., ch. 97), a cry of Horus that was echoed on the Cross (John. XIX. 28). Drought, [Page 834] as we have said, was the earliest devil. In the Osirian cult the whole of nature was expressed in a twofold totality according to the doctrine of Maati. Night and day, body and soul, water and drought, life and death, health and disease, were modes of the duality manifested in phenomena. Sut and Horus were the representatives of this
alternation and opposition personified as a pair of twins, now called the children of Osiris. Osiris Un-nefer is the Good Being, but as with nature he includes both the good and the evil in the totality. In the mythos, however, Horus represents the good and Sut the bad. Sut is said to undo the good that Horus does.
Hence he is the adversary or Satan when personified. As Prince of Darkness he puts out the eye of Horus, or the light by night. He sows the tares amidst the grain. He is the “eater of the arm”. He dries up the water of life with the desert-drought. He lets loose the locusts, the scorpions and other plagues. He represents negation and non-being in opposition to being, and to the Good Being who is divinized in Osiris and manifested by Horus. The triumph of Horus over Sut is frequently referred to in the Ritual. In one of his battles Horus destroyed the virile member of Sut, as the symbol of his power. (Ch.17,68,69). In another Sut and his associates were overthrown and pierced by Horus so long as blood would flow. In his resurrection Horus comes to put an end to the opposition of Sut, and to the troubles he had raised against Osiris his father (Rit., 137 B). He says: I am the beloved son. I am come to see my father Osiris, and to pierce the heart of Sut (Rit., ch. 9). He is armed with horns against Sut (ch. 78, 42). Horus, “who giveth light by means of his own body”, is the God who is against Sut when Taht is between them as adjudicator in their dispute (Rit., ch. 83, 4). In the discourse of Horus to his father he says to Osiris, “I have brought thee the associates of Sut in chains”.
In the Gospels of the Infancy, which contain some remains of the more ancient legendary lore, the grapple of child Horus with the deadly Apap-reptile is frequently portrayed, as in the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, when the boy has been bitten by the serpent, and the Lord Jesus says to his playmates, “Boys, let us go and kill the serpent”. He proves his power over the reptile by making it suck the venom from the wound. Then the Lord Jesus curses the serpent, “whereupon the reptile was instantly rent asunder” (ch. 42). But the war of Horus with the Apap-dragon, or serpent of evil, is not fought out directly by Jesus in the canonical Gospels. Sut as the power of darkness and as the opponent in the moral domain had taken the place of the old first adversary of man in the phenomena of external nature. Jesus promises to give his followers power over the serpent and the scorpion, but there is no personal conflict with the preanthropomorphic Satan recognized in the four Gospels. Sut, as Satan in a human form, was a somewhat less unhistoric-looking type of the devil than the Apap-reptile. Satan, however, retains his old primitive form of the dragon in “the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy”. In this it is related that a damsel was afflicted by Satan, the cursed one, in the form of a huge dragon, which from time to time appeared to her and prepared to swallow her up. He also sucked out all her blood, so that she remained like a corpse. She is cured by a strip of the clothing that had been worn by the child, Lord Jesus (ch. 33). [Page 835] This is a form of the woman with an issue of blood. Her persecutor is the dragon of darkness who is the eternal devourer of the light in the Egyptian mythology, and of condemned souls in the eschatology. In the
gnostic version it is Sophia who suffers from the issue of blood and who is restrained and supported by Horus when her life is flowing away into immensity. The woman suffering from the swallowing dragon of darkness was the mother of the child of light in the moon. Expressed in human terms, Horus the bull, or fecundator of the mother, stopped her female flow and filled her with the glory of the light, and thus he overthrew the monster that assailed her in the dark, which was figured as the wide-mouthed crocodile or devouring dragon (Rit., ch. 80, 10). Horus puts a boundary round about Sophia. The child-Jesus cures the damsel with a strip of his raiment; and in the Gospel according to Matthew the woman who is flowing away like Sophia with her issue of blood is healed by touching the border of the garment worn by Jesus (Matt. IX. 20, 21). Here the dragon is omitted. The suffering lunar lady has been humanized, together with the Divine Healer; the cure is wrought; the modern miracle remains in place of the mystery according to the ancient wisdom.
The conflict between Sut and Horus (or Osiris), who are represented by Satan and Jesus in the Gospels, commences immediately after the baptism in the river Jordan. One form of baptism in the solar mythos was derived from the setting of the sun-god in the waters of the west, the waters in which Un-nefer washes when he has his dispute with Sut — either in the character of Horus or Osiris. Asar in his baptism is said to plunge into the waters with “Isis and Nephthys looking on”. Apuat (Anup) is present apparently conducting the submersion of the god (Inscrip. Of Shabaka from Memphis, line 42). In his baptism the god Un-nefer was prepared for his struggle with Sut, the power of drought in the desert of Anrutef. So, in the Gospels, Jesus is prepared by John in his baptism for the conflict with Satan in the wilderness, on the
pinnacle, and upon the exceeding high mountain. It was only after he had entered spirit-life that Horus could grapple with Sut, or Jesus with Satan, in the desert, on the pinnacle of the temple, or on the summit of the mount; consequently the earth-life had ended when the contest betwixt Satan and Jesus first began, in the phase of eschatology. The wilderness of Satan in the Gospel represents the desert of Sut in Amenta. When Satan seized on Jesus and bore him bodily up into the mountain Jesus had just risen from his baptism and was led up “of the Spirit”. Otherwise he had made his transformation from the state of manes to the status of a spirit. This was in the phase of eschatology and the transaction is in spirit-world.
When Jesus was “led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil” he is said to have “fasted forty days and forty nights”, and, afterwards, to “have hungered”, whatsoever that may mean.
This contention in the wilderness was one of the great battles of Sut and Horus, or, in the other version of the mythos, of Sut and Osiris. As Egyptian, the wilderness is the desert of Anrutef, a desolate, stony place where nothing grew. It was here that Horus was made blind by Sut, and was a sufferer from hunger and thirst in this region of stony sterility, and rootless, waterless sand. Horus in [Page 836] Amenta had to make way through the barren desert, in the domain of Sut, as sower of the seed from which the bread of life was made, much of which must have fallen on stony ground in the region of Anrutef. Forty days was the length of time in Egypt that was reckoned for the grain in the earth before it sprouted visibly from the ground. It was a time of scarcity and fasting in Egypt, which gave a very natural significance to the season of Lent, with its mourning for the dead Osiris, and its rejoicing over the child of promise, the germinating green shoot springing from the earth. This is represented in the Gospel as a fast of forty days and forty nights, during which Jesus wrestled with the devil and was hungry. The struggle then of Jesus with the devil in the wilderness is a repetition of the conflict between Horus and Sut in the desert of Amenta; on the mount and on the pinnacle of the ben-ben or temple in Annu. During the forty days that Osiris was typically buried in the nether-earth as seed, from which the bread of heaven was made, the struggle was continued by Sut and Horus in the mountain. This is repeated in the Gospels as the contest of Christ and Satan for the mastery in the mount. The conflict is between the powers of light and
darkness, of fertility and sterility, betwixt Osiris (or Horus) the giver of bread, and Sut, whose symbol of the desert was a stone. The fasting of Jesus in the desert represents the absence of food that is caused by Sut in the wilderness during forty days of burial for the corn, and Satan asking Jesus to turn the stones into bread is playing with the sign of Sut. Satan’s jape about converting stones into loaves of bread is likewise reminiscent of the mythos. The stone was an especial symbol of the adversary Sut. Also the place of the temple in Annu, and the pinnacle, or Ha-ben-ben, was the place of the stones by name.
Moreover, Annu was the place of bread, or the loaves. As it is said, “there are seven loaves in Annu with Ra”, the Father in heaven (Rit., ch. 53B).
As represented in the Ritual, Sut and Horus are more upon a footing of equality, whether in the wilderness or on the summit of the mount of glory. Their triumph is alternate, though that of Sut is much the more limited. As the power of drought and darkness he is master in the desert, and chief of the powers called the “tesheru deities”, or gods of the desert. The speaker in chapter 96 exclaims, “I have come to propitiate Sut and to make offerings to the God Akar and to the deities of the desert”, where Sut attained supremacy over Horus for a time. The desert was the natural domain of Sut the adversary of Horus. Hence Horus at his second coming exclaims, “I am Horus, the Lord of Kamit and the heir of tesherit” (Rit., ch. 138, lines 3 and 4), which he has also seized. Kamit is Egypt as a mythical locality: the dark and moist, fat and fertile land. Tesherit, the red land, is the desert. So that in taking possession of the “two worlds”, or the double earth, Horus has also seized the domain of Sut, the wilderness, which was a subject of contention in Amenta. Hence he says, “I have also seized the desert — I, the invincible one, who avengeth his father and is fierce at the drowning of his mother” (ch. 138).
In his resurrection Horus cometh forth as “the heir of the temple” in Annu. He is called “the active and powerful heir of the temple, [Page 837] whose arm resteth not” in the mummy bandages (ch. 115). That is, as the avenger of his father Osiris in Annu, where he rises with the whip or flail in his hand to drive the adversaries from the temple. Now Annu, the station of the temple, was the place of the pillar. The temple itself in Annu, or Heliopolis, was known by the name of Ha-ben-ben, the house of the pyramidion or temple of the pinnacle, and the struggle of Satan with Jesus on the pinnacle of the temple may be traced to that of Sut and Horus the heir of the temple or the Ha-ben-ben of Annu, following the contention of the twin powers of darkness and light, or of food and famine in the wilderness. “All the kingdoms of the world” are more definitely presented to view as celestial localities upon Mount Hetep. There are ten divisions of
this divine domain. The three scenes of struggle betwixt Jesus and Satan are (1) in the wilderness, (2) on the pinnacle, and (3) on an exceeding high mountain; and these can be paralleled in the conflicts between Horus and Sut. The forty days’ struggle in the wilderness was in Amenta. Next, there was a struggle on the ben-ben or pinnacle in Annu. And thirdly, Horus was carried off by Sut to the summit of Mount Hetep, where the two combatants were reconciled by Shu. The mount was a figure of the horizon in the solar mythos. On this the warring twins were constellated as the Gemini, and may be seen continuing their old conflict still, as Sut and Horus in the mythos, or as Satan and Jesus in the Christian eschatology. The earth, or heaven, that was first divided in two halves between Sut and Horus in the mythology is finally claimed to be the sole possession of Horus, the conqueror and the legitimate heir of God the father in the eschatology. The triumph of Horus over Sut is denoted by his kindling a light in the dark of death for the Ka or spiritual image in Amenta (Rit., ch. 137A). He was not only the light of the world in the mortal sphere. As it is said in the Ritual, “O light! Let the light be kindled for the ka!”. “Let the light be kindled for the night which followeth the day”. The light is called the eye of Horus, the glorious one, shining like Ra from the mount of glory, putting an end to the opposition of the dark-hearted Sut (Rit., ch. 137B).
The question of an historic Jesus is by no means so simple as the grossly simple early Christians thought. It is equally a question of the historic devil. From first to last the Lord and Satan are twin, and without Satan there is no Christ-Jesus nor any need of a redeemer. In the mythology Horus was the lord of light and Sut the adversary, or the Satan of drought and darkness, from the time when the two contended as the black bird and the white (or the golden hawk), or as the two lions (our lion and unicorn a-fighting in the moonlight for the crown), as the Rehus are described in the 80th chapter of the Ritual. As there was no Horus without Sut in the mythos, so there is no Jesus without Satan in the history. The brotherhood or twinship of Horus and Sut the betrayer is repeated in the canonical Gospels. Sut was the brother of Horus, born twin with him in one phase of the mythos, or with Osiris in another. In like manner Judas is a brother of Jesus. Now, when Horus the youth of twelve years makes his transformation into Horus the adult, the man of thirty years, it is as the enemy and eternal conqueror of Sut who in the earth-life often had the upper hand. But the contest [Page 838] of the personal Christ with a personal Satan in the New Testament is no more historical fact than the contest between the seed of the woman and the serpent of evil in the Old. Both are mythical; both are Egyptian mysteries. In the earlier narrative we have the struggle between Horus and the Apap-serpent of evil reproduced as Gospel truth by a writer in Aramaic. In the later the conflict between Horus and Sut (or Satan in his anthropomorphic guise) has been repeated as Christian history. As mythos the Ritual explains both, and for ever disproves their right to be considered historical. In one of the sayings assigned to Jesus it is promised that “in the regeneration when the son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, the disciples also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. XIX. 28). Now, when this was said according to Matthew, Judas the traitor was one of the twelve. Moreover, as reported by Luke, the same thing is uttered by Jesus after “Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve”, and therefore one of those who are to sit on the twelve thrones in the future kingdom, and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. No defection of the son of perdition is foreseen, no treachery allowed for.
Judas is reckoned as one of the twelve who are to sit at the table of the Lord and eat and drink in the kingdom that is yet to come (Luke XXII. 4-30). There is but one way in which the traitor could remain one of the twelve in heaven. This belongs to the astronomical mythology, not to any human history, as when the sign of the scorpion is given to Sut-typhon. In the newly-recovered Gospel of Peter there is no sign of Judas the betrayer having been one of the twelve. Immediately after the resurrection, it is said, the feast of the Passover being ended, “We the twelve disciples of the Lord wept and grieved, and each of us in grief at what had happened withdrew to his house” (Harris, page 56). At the same time, in Matthew, the disciples are but eleven in number when they go to meet Jesus by appointment on the mount, with Judas no longer one of them. Sut is as inseparable from Jesus in the Gospels as from Horus in the dual figure of the Egyptian twins. The name alone is changed; otherwise it is Sut the devil who is the tempter of Jesus during forty days and forty nights in the wilderness. It is Sut who carries Jesus to the summit of an exceeding high mountain. It is Sut who, as personal opponent, is seen to fall as lightning from heaven. It is Sut the betrayer who enters Judas to become the betrayer of Jesus. Also an historical Christ implies, involves, necessitates an historical devil. According to the canonical record the two must stand or fall together as realities. Both are personal or neither. And both were pre-extant as Horus and Sut, who were neither personal nor historical. Indeed, it is asserted by Lactantius (Inst. Div., B. 2, ch. 8), that the Word of God, the logos of John, is the first-born brother of Satan. That is honestly spoken and true, if we reidentify the word with the Horus who was born twin with Sut. He is wrong in making Horus the logos the first-born, but that is of little importance. Otherwise, he has got the twins all right. Sut was the first-born, but the birthright belonged to Horus who was the real heir. Now the “word of God” is made flesh in Jesus, and the contention of the twin-powers of darkness and light is rendered [Page 839] historically in the conflicts between Jesus and Satan in the wilderness, upon the pinnacle, or the mount, or in the harvestfield.
The contest is also illustrated by Luke (VIII. 12): “Then cometh the devil and taketh away the word from their heart that they may not believe and be saved”. This is one with Sut in undoing what Horus the Word had done, especially in sowing the seed of the logos. The contention of Sut and Horus is carried out betwixt Satan and Jesus to the last. Sut, the king in his turn, was triumphant over Horus in his suffering and death. “I go away”, says Jesus, “for the prince of this world cometh, and he hath nothing in me” (John XIV. 30).
Beelzebub, God of flies, is the particular name assigned to Satan in the Gospels as the prince of devils.
And as Sut was Prince of the Sebau, it seems probable that the “zebub”, or infernal flies, may have been identical with and therefore derived by name from that spawn of Satan the Sebau, the associates of Sut on the night of the great battle in the Ritual. In the parable of the sower it is said, “When anyone heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the evil one (the adversary Sut or Satan) and snatcheth away that which hath been sown in his heart” (Matt. XIII. 19). And in “the parable of the tares” it is said, “He that soweth the good seed is the son of man”; and of the good seed, “these are thevsons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy that sowed them is thevdevil” (Matt. XIII. 36-39). This is the contention of Horus and Sut in the harvest-field of Osiris representedvin parables instead of in the mysteries. Horus sows the good seed and Sut the tares. When Horus rises
in Amenta after death it is as the husbandman or harvester who comes to gather in the harvestvpreviously sown for the father by Horus in the earth of Seb, and to vanquish Sut, the sower of the tares,vthe thorns, and thistles in Anrutef.
The judgment of the world by Horus and the casting out of Sut is spoken of as a present fulfilment. “Now
is the (or a) judgment of this world. Now shall the prince of this world be cast out” (John XII. 31, 32). This judgment was annual in the mysteries of Amenta. Sut as prince of this world and the son of perdition was cast out and judgment passed on those who were to be no more. This was at the time when Horus as the son of man was glorified, and Sut with his associates were once more overthrown by him on the highways of the damned. In John’s account of the betrayal and arrest, when Jesus declares himself, the soldiers and officers who are with Judas are “struck to the ground”, or “they went backwards and fell to the ground” (John XVIII. 6, 7). So when “Horus repulses the associates of Sut”, they see the diadem upon his head and “fall upon their faces in presence of his Majesty” (Rit., 134, 11). Sut put out the eye of
Horus. This is parodied in the Gospels when Jesus is blindfolded and then asked to tell who struck him in the dark?.
We get one other passing glimpse of Sut and Horus the contending twins in the parable of the marriage feast (Matt. XXII). The wisdom of the Kamite mysteries was memorized in the sayings, and made portable in the parables. And in this the parable represents the marriage in the mystery of Tattu (Rit., ch. 17). Horus was the king’s son for whom the feast was made. He is Horus of the royal countenance in the mythos; the wearer of the Greek cloak of [Page 840] royalty in the Roman catacombs. The king is Ra who issues the invitation to the festival of “Come thou hithe”, which is represented by the Gospel marriage feast, to which those invited would not come. Sut as the adversary of Horus is the unbidden marriage guest who had no wedding garment on. The murderers who slay the servants of the king are the Sebau and co-conspirators of Sut, and the vindictive treatment that followed becomes intelligible only by means of the mythos.
The conflict betwixt Satan and Jesus attains a culmination astronomically. In the betrayal of Osiris the Good Being by the evil Sut there are seventy-two conspirators associated with the adversary. Seventytwo on the one hand as the powers of darkness imply the same number of opponent powers fighting on behalf of Horus or, it may be, Jesus on the other, the battle being in the seventy-two duodecans of the zodiac. This war of Sut and Horus is repeated once more in the Gospel when the seventy-two or the seventy “returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us in thy name”. And he said unto them, “I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven”. “Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all the powers of the enemy”. The enemy was Sut, and as a
symbol in the zodiac Sut was at one time figured in the scorpion-sign. Thus, the betrayal of Osiris happened when the sun or the bull of eternity, as the divinity is also called, was in the sign of Scorpio.
The sign of the bull being secretly assaulted by the scorpion is well known from the Mithraic monuments according to Hyde (Drummond, Aedipus Judaicus , Plate 13). In some of the Greco-Egyptian planispheres, given by Kircher, Sut is also identified as the scorpion which slew Osiris (Drummond, Plate 13). In the Gospel, power is given for the seventy-two to tread on the scorpion and to triumph over all the powers of the enemy (Luke X. 17-20). The two different numbers of seventy and seventy-two for those whose names were written in heaven show that both belong to the planisphere which had been divided at two different periods into the heaven of seventy and the heaven of seventy-two divisions. We can now see how and why the betrayer keeps his place as one of the twelve in the Gospel of Peter, and why he has been cast out in the Gospel according to Matthew. The Gospel of Peter was not historical, which means that it was astronomically based; and according to the gnosis the twelve whose thrones were set in heaven are zodiacal, not ethnical characters. Sut the betrayer was assigned the scorpion as a type of evil. And as the scorpion he keeps his place, like Judas in the Petrine Gospel, as one of the twelve who were to sit on twelve celestial thrones in spite of his defection, because the twelve originated as astronomical and not as historical realities.
The Gnostics maintained that Jesus was the Lord for one year only, and that he suffered in the twelfth
month, as did Osiris with the sun in the sign of Scorpio. Thus, the Egypto-gnostic Jesus throned upon
Mount Olivet with the twelve around him — he being a “little apart” — is a figure of the solar god with the
twelve who row the bark of Ra around the zodiac.
One result of turning the Egyptian mythos into Christian history has been to inflict the most nefarious injustice on the Jews. By [Page 841] shifting the scene of the Mysteries from the nether-earth of Amenta to the land of Judea the ethnical Jews have been thrust into the position of the Typhonian enemies of the Good Being, the Sebau and the Sami, the powers of evil in the mythos and the condemned manes in the eschatology. The Jews have been transmogrified into the associates of Sut and the spawn of Satan. That is why the father of the Jews is called the devil, and a murderer from the beginning; the liar and the father of all lying. That is why Judas is a devil; and the Jews as a people figure in the same category with Herod, slayer of the innocents, with Judas the betrayer of Jesus, and with the fiends of Sut, because they were charged with doing those things on earth which had only been and could only be enacted according to the mysteries in Amenta. For this perversion of the mythos the Jews have been hunted over the earth and persecuted ever since. They have suffered precisely in the same way as the red-haired Typhonian animals suffered in ancient Egypt (Plutarch, Of Isis and Osiris, 30, 31), which were dedicated and doomed to be slain in an avenging sacrifice because they represented the associates of the wicked Sut, the liar, the betrayer, the murderer, who put to death and mutilated the body of the good Osiris. The sufferers on account of the mythos were the Typhonian ass, the pig, and the goat. The sufferers on account of the “history” have been and still are the children of Israel. Whereas the Jews were no more
racial in the Gospels than the accursed Sebau are Egyptians in the Ritual. That they should be made to appear so is but a result of literalizing and localizing the Osirian drama in a spurious Judean history.
And here the present writer would remark that, in his view, the Jewish rejection of Christianity constitutes one of the sanest and the bravest intellectual triumphs of all time. It is worth all that the race has suffered from the persecution of the Christian world. The Jews, like the Gnostics, knew well enough that the Christian schema was a “fake”, and, although they were unable to explain how it had been manufactured from the leavings of the past, they knew that it was false, non-natural and unnecessary. Up to the present time their victory may have been comparatively negative, in consequence of their failure to retell the story in the only one authentic way, that is, with a sufficient grasp of the data. They have not been able to reinstate the truth once confounded and overthrown, but they have borne witness dumbly, doggedly, unceasingly, with faces set like flint unflinchingly against the lie. They would not believe that their God, though imaged anthropomorphically, had become a man, and so they have remained non-Christian to this day, never to be converted now. For at last the long infernal Juden-Hetze nears its end; the time of their justification and triumph is at hand, when the persecutor with the stone in his grasp will drop it suddenly and flee helter-skelter for his life.