|
| A diagram showing the Atum = Adam equivalence, i.e. the Egyptian god Atum and the Hebrew man Adam, the latter of which, according to consensus (Massey, 1907; Luckert, 1991; Greenberg, 2000), being a monotheistic rescript of the former. |
“The mythology of Egypt supplies most interesting confirmation of this theory that the gods of heathenism were deified patriarchs, and shows the system extended still farther, so as to embrace even their forefathers who lived before the flood. Thus Atum, ‘King of the gods’, ‘Lord of the worlds’, ‘god of the setting sun’, and ‘of the lower world’, the judge of souls departed, whom he calls children, whilst they call him father, is evidently Adam.”
“The so-called ‘legends of creation’ would be more correctly termed the ‘legend of human evolution’, although in a different sense from that of Darwinian development. As Semite, they came to us in the latest and least genuine form, with no clue to any true interpretation. In a Maori myth, man was created by the god Tiki from red clay. This he kneaded with his own blood, or with red water from the swamps. Man is Atum in Egyptian, Admu in Assyrian, and Adam in Hebrew.”
Atum (father)
Set & Osiris | → Horus (legitimate heir)
Adam (father)Cain & Abel | → Seth (legitimate heir)
“Comparisons and evaluations of the kind Frankfort [1948] offered obviously are based on a double standard. After all, was the breath blown into Adam's nostrils by the Hebrew god any less material than the Egyptian wind of Shu? Were the creative commands of the Hebrew god, in Genesis 1, more spiritual than the commands of Ptah? Or, were the words that resounded from the heart and tongue of Ptah more ‘spiritual’ than Atum-Shu's mostly silent breathing? Then, is a sovereign god any less real if his involvements extend into the human as well as material spheres?”
“Ancient Adam was not a man or male of the human species, but, rather, a mythical being representing the ancient Egyptian god of Atum or Atoum.”— F.G. Morgan (1907), “Biblical Myths of Eden, Adam, and Eve” (pg. 71)
“This interesting theory may have a measure of truth in it in spite of the fact that Greek society, for instance, voiced protests, through literature, against what was considered the immorality of-the gods.'" Yet it is hard to believe that this is the primary explanation of the brother-sister marriages in the myth. The basic reason for their presence seems to have been a structural necessity arising from the myth itself. If Atum is regarded as the first divine being, who generated Shu and Tefnet from himself, and if the whole Heliopolitan Ennead is to be explained as related through the succession established, then Shu and Telnet as well as their children Geb and Nut must be paired in marriage and procreation although they are brother and sister; and when the Ennead is rounded off by the children of Geb and Nut — Osiris, Seth, Isis and Nephthys — it is natural that the same principle should be followed in grouping these. In all cases, therefore, the 'Geschwisterehe' [sibling marriage] is a compulsive element in a genealogical structure which has all the marks of being consciously and factitiously fashioned. A parallel may be sought in the Biblical situation relating to Cain. His wife's origin is admittedly glossed over carefully, e.g. Leviticus 18:9 forbids brother-sister incest, but the Book of Jubilees 4 states that the sons of Adam married their sisters, the suggestion being that incest was necessary to populate the earth, but the mythic detail shows that Cain’s wife must be regarded as his sister. The same applies to Abel.”— John Griffiths (1966), The Origins of Osiris and His Cult [4]
“Atum, the spirit of life, existed within Nun. In creating himself, Atum became the evolving ancestor of the human race. So goes the Egyptian mythology of creation, in which the Judaic Adam has his roots.”— Author (1982), “Article” (pg. 215), Anthropology: Contemporary Perspectives
