The Memphite Theology
A second theology, the Memphite theology, enlarged upon these concepts. It apparently dates from the New Kingdom (1551-1070 B.C.), although it is possible that, given the importance of Memphis in the Old Kingdom, it was based on an earlier theology. The source for this theology is the Shabaka Stone, an eighth century B.C. copy or summary of an older text. In any case, it is at least two centuries earlier than the corresponding priestly composition of Genesis 1.
The Memphite theology proclaimed that Ptah, the major deity of the city or perhaps the god of its artisans, was the God of all gods. The Memphite priesthood seized upon a weakness of the Heliopolitan system, i.e. the undefined first Nun from which Atum emerged. The theology takes the opportunity to place Ptah prior in time and brings within him all elements of the cosmology. In the Memphite theology, Ptah is made prior in time to Atum and greater in scope. He is the All-god including the chaotic mystery of Nun. He appears in all; and all things are part of his creation. Compare John 1: 3 “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made....” This combination of Ptah-Nun that begat Atum forms a new trinity of Ptah-Nun-Atum replacing the Atum-Shu-Tefnut trinity of ka modes.
The Memphite theology also improves upon the method of creation, from a purely physical act to an act of thought and speech. Ptah is called the “heart and tongue” of the Ennead. In him creation is by the word, or Logos. He is the original vital force, and when the concept of creation was formed in his heart (where the Egyptians believed thoughts came from), it became manifest when the word reached his tongue.
The Memphite cosmogony gives us an antecedent for creation by divine command, as in Genesis 1, and for the appearance of the nature of the divine as Logos, as in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God.” Further, the Memphite theology states that “Ptah was satisfied after he had made everything,” so Ptah rested. In the later Genesis account of creation, Genesis 1:31, “God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was good.” And in Genesis 2:2, god ended his work of creation and rested.
The transition from soothing flow of water, like the Nile, to divine command, like king’s royal command, had political implications which highlight the New Kingdom’s theology. The implication is that the Logos (Word) of the godhead and the Logos (Word) of god-king are indistinguishable. In some accounts, the Memphite theology states that Ptah, the Word on his tongue, was exhaling or expelling air as he spoke, or in some made an audible cry. Again, compare the creation stories found in Genesis: God creating male and female in his own image, as in the Heliopolitan theology, and God creating man and blowing his breath into Adam’s nostrils. (Genesis 2:7 “...breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”)
The creation command of Hebrew God comes into the Christian religion in John, and both repeat the breath of life idea of Heliopolitan theology and the Logos cosmology familiar from the Memphite theology. (Genesis 1:3ff “And God said...”) (John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word.”) The Christian religion broke from the Hebrew religious environment but maintained a Logos cosmology in John in which the creative word of god identified with the Son of God sent into this world, like Horus and all the god kings sent to rule this world. Compare John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father,)....” We might further note that the Light (sun) was Jesus Christ.
It is these commonalities that cause Professor Luckert to ask; can we still maintain as Henri Frankfurt did in Ancient Egyptian Religion (1948), that there is a distinction between Hebrew monotheism and Egyptian monotheism based on the difference between transcendence and immanence? Was the breath blown into the nostrils of Adam by the Hebrew God any less material than the Egyptian wind of Shu? Were the creative commands of the Hebrew God in Genesis more spiritual than the commands resounding from the heart and tongue of Ptah?
| Section 16 | Section 18 |