Old Testament Myths: Moses was Akhenaten Immortalised?

· For Reference and Research, Judaism, Myths

IntroductionThe intent of this essay it to examine some of the Biblical stories in relation to the modern evolution of scientific knowledge to see if it satisfies modern common sense and logic. Or whether some of the Biblical stories were allegorical myths sufficient unto their day. It is meant to be an objective analysis of the views of men from different periods of their intellectual evolution. It is also meant to evaluate whether hypothesis of 2000 or 4000 years ago can still pass the test of the evidence discovered by science in the 21st century. This article is not intended to criticise but to satisfy curiosity and logic.   

JUDAISMThe official story of Judaic myth and religion is contained in the books of the Old Testament, which are thought to have been compiled circa1000 BC. Until the late-19th century, it was assumed that these books constituted a unique and divinely-inspired account of the origins of mankind and Western civilisation. But then came the discoveries of older, parallel texts in the ancient Near East, many dating back to the 2nd and 3rd millennia BC. Accordingly, it is now widely appreciated that the Old Testament is but a continuation and adaptation of these earlier religious writings. As the renowned Sumerologist Samuel N. Kramer explained in his 1956 book ‘History Begins at Sumer’:

Archaeological discoveries made in Egypt and in the Near East in the past hundred years have opened our eyes to a spiritual and cultural heritage undreamed of by earlier generations… a bright and revealing light has been shed on the background and origin of the Bible itself. We can now see that this greatest of literary classics did not come upon the scene full-blown, like an artificial flower in a vacuum; its roots reach deep into the distant past and spread wide across the surrounding lands. Both in form and content, the biblical books bear no little resemblance to the literatures created by earlier civilisations in the Near East.

To be fair, the Old Testament books are distinctive from earlier literatures in quite a few respects. For example:

• The religion is strictly monotheistic. There is One God. There is no Goddess. And the gods are largely occulted from view.

• God is disembodied from the beginning. When he creates the Universe, he does so ‘at arm’s length’. Accordingly, he is not to be regarded as a Sun-god, a Moon-god, or a star-god; and nor is he to be worshipped via any symbolic image.

• God’s act of creation is non-cataclysmic. His cataclysmic role is historicised, to feature only in post-creation events such as the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and Sodom and Gomorrah, and the descent upon Mount Sinai.

• God takes a special interest in the Jewish people, and intervenes in the course of history to establish them in ‘the promised land’.

• On the question of religious philosophy, the afterlife is denied to the common man. ‘For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return’.

• The books provide a complete ‘history’ from the creation of man to the events of the present day.

• Overall, the emphasis is less on the creation myth, and more on philosophy and the political history of the Jewish nation.

The net effect of these differences is that the Old Testament is valued more for its historical and philosophical insights than for its revelations on the meaning of God and the creation myth. Indeed, on the latter questions the books seem to give away as little as possible.

However, if one takes an overview of the Old Testament in the light of the earlier pagan religions, a pattern emerges which is strongly reminiscent of the old pagan religions. For example:

• God is a deity of many names: he is variously called Elohim, Yahweh, Adonai, and El Shaddai.

• God is said to have fought a cosmic battle against a sea-monster named Rahab, whom he pierced, cut into pieces, and flung into the abyss.

• God may be depicted in human-like form, experiencing human-like emotions, and yet he typically manifests himself with phenomena such as bright light, fire, thunder, arrows, a storm of meteorites, or a flood. When he descends from the sky, the earth trembles, splits open, or melts before his presence.

• God’s creation of the Universe begins with a proto-earth that is submerged in a flood of water. This is identical to the Egyptian myth of creation.

• To create the Universe, God separates light from darkness (i.e. soul from body), and separates waters from waters (i.e. the sky-ocean from the terrestrial ocean). He then causes the land of the proto-earth to rise above the waters. Again, this is identical to the Egyptian myth of creation.

• God creates man in his own image, using the clay of the earth. Certain passages in the Old Testament suggest that man was cast down from a heavenly paradise, whilst the Garden of Eden story in the Book of Genesis attests to a period of man’s existence in the underworld. These ideas follow the Sumerian creation myth.

• God authorises a Great Flood to destroy mankind and all living things. Although this is portrayed as a historic event, it closely follows an incident in the Sumerian creation myth.


Despite the Hebrew priests’ best efforts to distance their religion from the pagan creation cults, the influence of the latter can be identified and traced. This allows us to conclude that the God of the Old Testament is a made-over version of the Gods of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. In other words, he is a Creator-God who personified the act of creation. [1]

Reading List

The Bible, Old Testament.

A.F. Alford, ‘When The Gods Came Down’, Hodder and Stoughton, 2000.

R. Alter, ‘Genesis’, W. W. Norton and Co., 1996.

Copyright Notice
‘These pages are the copyright of Eridu Books 2004. The images and diagrams are the copyright of Alan Alford or of other photographers, where indicated. Eridu Books welcomes the reproduction and dissemination of these pages, in original, unaltered form, for non-commercial purposes, but permission must be sought for any other usage, other than ‘fair dealing’ quotations.’


Discussions about Judaic Myths, the Mother of Abrahamic Faiths

[I will abide by the copyrights notice of the above article and “fair dealing” with the article.]

I like the carefully chosen words, beautifully used in the article such as, 

“This allows us to conclude that the God of the Old Testament is “a made-over version of the Gods” of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. In other words, he is a Creator-God who personified the act of creation.”

This leaves me a lot of wriggle space because so many fundamental Christians (also Jews and Muslims) seem to interpret their Holy Books too literally to allow themselves to be flexible and open enough to even consider that some of those earlier statements were erroneous myths or only meant to be parables. It seems that to accentuate their piety it is necessary to be firmly and unshakable in their acceptance that their Holy Scriptures are the literal messages of God and not “a (man) made-over version of the God/s of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.”  In Islam, the Qur’an is also accepted as the literal word of Allah.

In fact, most devout fundamentalist Christians would not dream of contaminating their concepts of their faith by delving into the writings or researches of such scholars of Egyptologists, Archaeologists,, Palaeontologists, Biologists, Medical scientists, Cosmologists, or Historian, if the new information does agree or not support Biblical doctrines. And it is this very inflexible, uncompromising, exclusive, superior, bigoted attitude that is driving away the newer generations of people who are very much better educated and taught to analyse freely and independently. Instead of upgrading and incorporating the new scientific findings to upgrade archaic concepts and evolving a fresh acceptable philosophy for the 21st century and beyond, tremendous energy is spent on defending the indefensible issues and to create a rejection, revulsion and animosity to that faith because it is so intolerantly inflexible and uncompromising cult like attitudes. Little wonder, fundamentalist Christian proselytisers usually frighten away their audiences and do more damage than good.

Creation of Man 

From the first chapter of Genesis, a general statement:

“And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in His own image, in The Image Of God created He him; male and female created He them.” (Genesis 1:26-27 KJV)

From the second chapter of Genesis, a more detailed account:

“And The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul [see Where Is Your Soul?] … And The Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him … And The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which The Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” (Genesis 2:7,18,21-23 KJV)

Surely, this story is allegorical. Surely God must have known how man evolved. But people at the time of Moses did not know how man evolved. But if it was God who related this story, then either God too was ignorant of how life began, or Genesis was  written entirely by ignorant man, and God had nothing to do with it. In fact man is only now beginning to learn of the secrets of life in the 21st century and might one day clone man (he has already succeeded with sheep.) In fact man has recently been able to create a bacterial cell from laboratory produced chemically synthesized genomes (see abstract that follows*). The next step is to produce animal life artificially through genome manipulations. Will the ability to manipulate such biological reactions for creating cell life then elevate man to the status of God? Or does this prove the Genesis has been the product of man’s imagination?


Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome

We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08–mega–base pair Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 genome starting from digitized genome sequence information and its transplantation into a M. capricolum recipient cell to create new M. mycoides cells that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including “watermark” sequences and other designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication. [2]

This raises the scientific questions concerning the probability of the creation of life, or creation of man as our understanding of cell and genome behaviour is better understood. Could man possibly have been created from a lump of clay? Or could Jesus been born if Mary’s ovum was not impregnated with a sperm cell (from some source)? Only innocence could have believed that it could have been so. So the events narrated in Genesis were not even parables, but myths born out of innocence of science. Genesis was man’s created but  uncorroborated myths written within man’s limits of scientific knowledge for that era, and thus it could not have reflected the omniscience of God who would have known better if Genesis had been written under the guidance of God. “If a single brick in the foundation of the Biblical stories is unsafe, then the whole edifice is unsafe.” At least that is what I would have expected since I have always been told of the omniscience of God all my life, that He would have ensured that anything concerning the ideology or philosophy of God would be correct. I could not imagine otherwise.

Moses the Father of Judaism and Monotheism

Although there is much debate on who was the father of Judaism, in my mind, without the Torah there would be no Judaism. The Torah defines Judaism and God revealed the Torah to Moses in 1314 BC on Mount Sinai. So it was through Moses that the Torah was first introduced to the Jewish people. Without the Torah, there is no Judaism.

G-d appeared to Moses and chose him to lead the people out of Egyptian slavery and to the Promised Land (Ex. Chs. 3-4). With the help of his brother Aaron, Moses spoke to Pharaoh and triggered the plagues against Egypt (Ex. Chs. 4-12). He then led the people out of Egypt and across the sea to freedom, and brought them to Mount Sinai, where G-d gave the people the Torah and the people accepted it (Ex. Chs. 12-24).

G-d revealed the entire Torah to Moses. The entire Torah includes the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) that Moses himself wrote as G-d instructed him. It also includes all of the remaining prophecies and history that would later be written down in the remaining books of scripture, and the entire Oral Torah, the oral tradition for interpreting the Torah, that would later be written down in the Talmud. Moses spent the rest of his life writing the first five books, essentially taking dictation from G-d.

After Moses received instruction from G-d about the Law and how to interpret it, he came back down to the people and started hearing cases and judging them for the people, but this quickly became too much for one man. Upon the advice of his father-in-law, Yitro, Moses instituted a judicial system (Ex. 18:13-26). [3]

It has been on this basis that I have always viewed Judaism and I do accept that Adam and Abraham are the genetic ancestors of the Jewish people. But I also contend that the concept of monotheism was introduced by Moses from 1314 BC onwards and not before. Before 1314 BC religious matters appear to be a taboo topic among the Abrahamic Faiths. It is not discussed, it is buried in antiquity. Why? Because the Old Testament stories would become very complicated, murky and involved as the following discussions will show.

But Who was Moses?

The story of Moses in the Old Testament has never been questioned but always accepted as the literal truth of his life. Yet no one ever questioned how, in a world of polytheism that this concept arrive with Moses? What were the surrounding religious philosophies contemplated at that time? Only lately has anyone questioned the identity of Moses or whether Moses in the Old Testament as but a caricature of some Aten worshipping Egyptian priest as hypothesised by Sigmund Freud or that Moses in the Old Testament was a caricatured depiction of the Pharaoh Akhenaten who was one of the earliest monotheist in Egyptian history.

(Sigmund) Freud argued that Moses had been an Atenist priest forced to leave Egypt with his followers after Akhenaten’s death. Freud argued that Akhenaten was striving to promote monotheism, something that the biblical Moses was able to achieve.

Other scholars and mainstream Egyptologists point out that there are direct connections between early Judaism and other (ancient) Semitic religious traditions. They also state that two of the three principal Judaic terms for God, Yahweh, Elohim (morphologically plural, lit. “gods”), and Adonai (morphologically plural, lit. “my lords” ) have a connection to Aten. Freud commented on the connection between Adonai, the Egyptian Aten and the Syrian divine name of Adonis as a primeval unity of language between the factions; in this he was following the argument of Egyptologist Arthur Weigall. Jan Assmann’s opinion is that ‘Aten’ and ‘Adonai’ are not linguistically related.

Akhenaten appears in history almost two centuries prior to the first archaeological and written evidence for Judaism and Israelite culture is found in the Levant. While such imagery is not a feature of early Israelite culture, abundant visual imagery of the Aten disk (which celebrated the natural world) was central to Atenism. [4]

“”Following on the heels of questions raised by Sigmund Freud, other Egyptologists began to do further researches into this connection to the ancient Egyptian cultures. Ahmed Osman has offered some of his comprehensive hypothesis by tying the Old Testament stories to Egyptian historical records. Osman’s book, “Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus” [5] and, “Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion” [6] provide an alternative insight into the possible origins of Judaism.

“Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus”

Ahmed Osman’s recent archaeological discoveries and historical documents contend that Akhenaten and Moses were one and the same man. In a stunning retelling of the Exodus story, Osman details the events of Moses/Akhenaten’s life: how he was brought up by Israelite relatives and ruled Egypt for seventeen years before he was forced to abdicate the throne. [5]

“Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion”

Author Ahmed Osman contends that the roots of Christian belief spring not from Judaea but from Egypt. Comparing the Old Testament with ancient Egyptian records, he shows that major characters of the Hebrew scriptures and major tenets of Christianity–the One God and the Trinity–are Egyptian in origin. [6]

A Review

This research will open the flood gates 3 Dec 2007
By Meg – Published on Amazon.com
Author Ahmed Osman has written this book to get people to stop and realize that these characters from the Torah/Talmud were actual, historical figures. He claims the link to actual Egyptian history was severed in the early Common Era when Rome became thirsty for power (including religious power) and, hand-in-hand with destroying the library at Alexandria, they “destroyed” Christianity’s true roots as an Egyptian “political” religion.

His research is not widely accepted by a majority of modern Egyptologists, he claims for reasons that it will put their own work in jeopardy. I would have to agree with that, however, his work will be no big threat to anyone until he (and other researchers) can find more evidence to demonstrate his theories. (He also needs to explain why, if Roman theologists eliminated all positive references to Egypt in religious scripture, Jewish manuscripts have eliminated the same “missing” references.)

The theories Osman has come up with are very intriguing. He provides biographical information for some ancient Egyptian rulers and compares their dynastic careers with descriptions we find for certain characters in the Torah, starting out with King David and working his way down the line chronologically.

Osman also references ancient Egyptian societal customs in relation to marriages, birthrights, military campaigns, etc. — He points out that often, a sentence in Scripture that seems like “no big deal” contains some big hidden secret alluding to cultural norms of the area and time, for example, he breaks down some passages about King David’s political position in Egypt and explains how Westerners have misinterpreted these passages and teaches the correct meaning in relation to the events’ setting.

As far as I am aware, this is one of the first books published to pose such theories, and I am sure most people will be resistant to agree with him. However, I feel his speculation will fuel many other researchers to attempt to either prove or disprove his theories, and hopefully we can expect to find many more books on this topic soon. [6]
About the Author
Ahmed Osman was born in Cairo in 1934 and now lives in England.


In this age of Freedom of Speech and with the easy access of researched material on the internet, the days when Rabbis and Priests, and Imams can hold sway over public opinion is diminishing very fast. The main incentive for me to arrange this essay is to provide a reply to the many fundamentalist religionists that keep on insisting on the narrow interpretations of their Holy Scripts. This essay is not to disprove what is in the Torah, the Bible, or the Qur’an, but to shine a light on the possibility of a different outlook on the way religious texts were compiled and the possibility whether some Judaic,  Biblical or Qur’anic  may have been interpreted too literally or whether the sources, especially those transmitted verbally could have been manipulated to suit the writer?  No doubt, many more researches will be conducted and some old ones refreshed as attitudes are liberalised.

All three Abrahamic base their fundamental beliefs on the Old Testament, and so the myths apply to all.

Isaiah (Esaias), Joshua, and Jesus have identical meanings, that is literally, “Jehovah-saves.”

Could Jesus of the Bible be a Figurative Representation of Tutankhamun (Joshua/Jesus).


Upon the departure of Akhenaten, the coregent Semenkhare was left in power, but in less than a year he died or was killed,(1) and was succeeded by the now famous Tutankhamun.(2)Because of the very close similarity of their skulls and their identical blood types,(3)Tutankhamun and Semenkhare are considered to have been brothers.(4)

The mummies of Amenhotep III, Tiye, Tutankhamun and Semenkhare(5) have all been identified with a great deal of certainty. Scientists are currently trying to extract DNA from small samples taken from these and other 18th Dynasty mummies.(6) If this effort is successful it could provide a non-controversial solution to the particular mystery of Tutankhamun’s parentage.

With Akhenaten in exile, the line of David (Thutmose III) became divided. One Pharaoh lived on in the Sinai. The other “Branch” (Isaiah 4:2, 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5) now “sitting on the throne of his father [Amenhotep III or Akhenaten],” was the young Tutankhamun. After his coronation, or perhaps as part of the coronation itself, Tutankhamun’s name was changed. His birth name had been Tut-ankh-aten. The change in his name was likely part of a compromise with the priests of Amun. Because Tutankhamun was only a child of seven to ten years old at his ascension, it could hardly have been a deliberate decision on his own part in contrast to the name change of his father (from Amenhotep IV to Akhenaten). Under the supervision of the elderly prime minister, Aye (second son of Yuya and identified with Ephraim, the second and more favored son of the Biblical Joseph), Tutankhamun continued to rule Egypt from the city of Akhetaten until the third or fourth year of his reign (when he was persuaded to change the royal residence as well from the city of Akhetaten to Memphis).

In his tomb it is written that “he spent his life in making images of the gods.”(7) Two of his traditional five coronation names included the phrase “Propitiation of the Gods.”(8) The monument known as the “Restoration Stele” found at Karnak recorded that Tutankhamun devoted his entire reign to the healing and restoration of Egypt. It read, “The good ruler, performing benefactions for his father [Amun] and all the gods, for he has made what was ruined to endure as a monument for the ages … the temples … [had] gone to pieces. Their shrines had become desolate … overgrown with weeds … as if they had never been. The land was topsy-turvy … If one prayed to a god … he would never come … (9) Although his main agenda was restoring the status quo of Amun and other Egyptian gods, he also maintained and even added to Akhenaten’s temples to the Aten at Karnak.(10)

The life and death of the young Pharaoh Tutankhamun was decidedly “Messianic.” The literal meaning of the name Tutankhamun is “Living Image of the Lord (Tut -meaning likeness or image; Ankh – meaning life and symbolized by a cross; and amun – the god Amun)”(11) He is described in his tomb as ‘The Beautiful God, beloved, dazzling of face (cf. Exodus 34)(12) like the Aten…’(13) However, the Lord thatTutankhamun’s name now acknowledged was no longer the Aten, but Amun. This is encoded by Isaiah 7:14, “the Lord (Adon/Aten is used here) himself shall give you a sign … His name shall be called Immanuel.” Immanuel transliterated back into Egyptian reads Amun-u-el meaning “his (u) god (el) is Amun.”(14)

The word messiah is also of Egyptian origin and derives from the ritual anointing of a Pharaoh that was an essential part of the coronation ceremony.(15) Tutankhamun was indeed the messiah of those followers who had gone with Akhenaten into exile, and their main source of protection and provision in the Sinai desert. He also was their only hope of being able to eventually return to their homes in Egypt. This hope ended with the unexpected death of Tutankhamun when he was at most twenty years old.

In the Bible, the father of Joshua is named as Nun. This is the only person having this name in the Bible. Nun was among the most ancient of Egyptian deities and was associated with the primordial waters of chaos of both the Egyptian and Hebrew creation stories.(16) Nun later came to be a symbol of Christ, i.e., the fish.(17) It is Joshua who is said to have been Moses’ “aide since his youth” (Numbers 11:28). When Moses fled with his followers to the Sinai, it is Joshua who suddenly appears to support him. It is Joshua who is summoned to take men and fight on Moses’ behalf (Exodus 33:12-17).(18) It is Joshua who ascends Mount Sinai with Moses to receive the commandments of God.(19) It is Joshua who enters and remains in the “tent of meeting” where Moses goes to speak with “the Lord” (Exodus 33:7-11).(20) And “the day on which Moses came down from Mount Sinai,”(21) it is Joshua, not Zimri, whom the Talmud says was slain by Phineas in that same tent of meeting (Numbers 25:6-8), not for adultery with a foreign woman, but for spiritual adultery with forbidden gods.(22)

In the wilderness, the Israelites would, by necessity, have allied themselves with bedouin tribes for survival. One such tribe, the Biblical Midianites, are accused of deceit and implicated in the killing of Balaam/Jesus (Numbers 25:17-18).(23) For this reason they were to be abhorred by the Israelites from that time forward.

The name of Akhenaten’s “Chief Servitor” and “Second Priest of the Aten” was Panehasy,(24) which is the Egyptian equivalent of Phineas.(25)Excavation of Panehasy’s house in the city of Akhetaten has revealed that he and Akhenaten were close friends as well as being completely devoted to the cult of the Aten.(26) (Ironically, the tomb of Panehasy behind the city of Akhetaten (which he was not buried in), later became the site of a Coptic Christian church!)(27)

Osman suggests that the 24,000 Israelites who were said to have died on the day of Phineas’ zealous deed, did not die of a plague, but perished at the hands of Aye (Ephraim) who came for the body of Tutankhamun and to meet out swift retribution for his murder.(28) Hosea 13:1 states, “When Ephraim spoke, men trembled; he was exalted in Israel. But he became guilty of Baal worship and died.” Just as Tutankhamun(Joshua/Jesus) was accused of compromising the true faith of Aten, so was Aye (Ephraim).

The names Isaiah (Esaias), Joshua, and Jesus have identical meanings, that is literally, “Jehovah-saves.”(29)

Joshua and Isaiah are derived from the same Hebrew roots, one making use of the full form of Jehovah and the other the contracted form (Yah).Jesus is the equivalent name in Greek. In the book of Isaiah (literally the book of Jesus), the Messiah is spoken of in both past and future tenses.(30) A straightforward interpretation is that the Messiah had already lived, was killed, but was expected to return to reclaim his rightful place on the throne of David (Thutmose III).

The followers of Moses (Akhenaten) and their descendants were divided over the killing of Tutankhamun (Joshua/Jesus). Those represented by the author(s) of the book of Isaiah believed that the murder of the Messiah was the cause of God’s punishment, and the reason for their being exiled from Israel to Babylon as they had previously been expelled from Egypt. In contrast, the compilers of the Talmud state that the killing of “Jesus (the Nazarene)” was justified because he “practiced magic and led Israel astray.”(31)

Statements in the Talmud also confirm that Jesus had lived and died in more ancient times, and more specifically in the time of Moses, himself. The Talmud states that it was not the priest Caiaphas who was responsible for the death of Jesus,(32) but that the priest “Pinhas(33) killed him [Balaam/Jesus].”(34) (In the Talmud the names Jesus and Balaam are sometimes synonymous.)(35) Balaam was also recognized in the Talmud as having been a true prophet sent by God for the benefit of the Gentiles.(36) The Talmud relates that Balaam, himself “a descendant of rulers and princes” and a contemporary of Moses, was appointed to oversee the king’s affairs while he was away, but had usurped the throne after the king’s departure.(37) Although Tutankhamun (Balaam of the Talmud story) still worshiped the Aten, he was seen as ruling illegitimately in Akhenaten’s place. Furthermore he had committed blasphemy by restoring the very gods of Egypt that Akhenaten (Moses) had prohibited, and by condoning the ancient forms of magic and mythology associated with their cults.(38) According to the Laws of Moses this was a crime punishable by death and despite the status of Balaam/Jesus, he was not to be “spared”.(39)

A fracture that penetrated Tutankhamun’s skull, and the bone chip found inside the skull itself, indicates that Tutankhamun did die from an injury caused by a spear or arrow.(40) The mummified skull of Tutankhamun was found completely shaved, but with a short amount of stubble. It has been interpreted that his head may have been shaved as a “preliminary treatment” for the head wound, and that Tutankhamun survived long enough after the injury to grow a short stubble.(41) However, another interpretation is that his head was already shaved at the time of the injury. Ritual shaving of the head was a traditional and mandatory practice among Egyptian priests of that time. As Pharaoh, Tutankhamunofficiated as a priest of the highest rank. Centuries later, the apostle Paul had a vision of Jesus the Nazarene (not Jesus of Nazareth as it is commonly mistranslated in the Book of Acts (e.g., Acts 22:8).(42) Paul also had his own head shaved (Acts 21:24-26) after which he was arrested and accused of being a leader of the “sect of the Nazarenes.”(43) This was a charge that he did not deny (Acts 24:5-6,14).

After the untimely death of Tutankhamun, Aye buried Tutankhamun in the tomb he was having prepared for himself.(44) This is the source of the statement about the Messiah in the Book of Isaiah, “he was assigned a grave with the wicked, but with the rich in his death.”(45) Aside from the Pharaoh, Aye was the wealthiest and most powerful person in Egypt as was his father Yuya (Joseph) before him. After three days, and according to Egyptian tradition, Aye returned to the tomb and presided at the “opening of the mouth” ceremony at which Tutankhamun was believed (as were all Pharaohs) to be resurrected to eternal life in the afterworld.

The identification of Tutankhamun as one source of the Biblical story of Joshua (and archetype for Jesus of Nazareth) is even more clear when passages in the New Testament are re-read in that light. It explains the apparently literal meeting of Jesus (Joshua) with Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration.(46) It explains the necessity of Jesus’ titles of Messiah and Son of God.(47) It explains the story of the rich burial given to Jesusby Joseph of Arimathaea. It explains why Jesus had to remain in the tomb for parts of three days before his “resurrection.” It explains why Jesusraised Lazarus (derived from Osiris)(48) from the dead in order to demonstrate his identification with Osiris and belief in the after-life. It explains the necessity of Jesus’ holy birth(49) through Mary (Merit) and the Holy Spirit, and a host of other events and symbolism in the life ofJesus as described in the New Testament.

Tutankhamun was revered as a god both in life and in death. Although he was tragically killed, the Israelite prophets proclaimed that he would one day return and retake his rightful place on the throne of his father David (Thutmose III). This throne had formerly been sacrificed in his attempt to reconcile a divided nation. Osman’s theory is that when the Messianic Hope was all but extinguished, the meaning of Tutankhamun’s sacrificial death and resurrection was given a new context for a new era in the 1st Century A.D. story of Jesus of Nazareth.(50) In this form, it would come to represent a sacrificial atonement not only for Israel, but for the sins of the whole world.

The tomb of the tragic figure of Tutankhamun, the last of his line, and source of the Messianic hope, came to light in 1922. The art and contents of the tomb included many items which would later become associated with Catholic ritual and symbolism.(51) Other material found in the tomb confirms that his death was in the spring (with burial 70 days later in early summer), the traditional time of the Jewish Passover.(52)

He is the only Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty whose mummy still remains in the Valley of the Kings. Today, over one million people file through his crumbling tomb(53) and past his divested and decaying mummy each year. It is now possible to more fully appreciate the legacy that he and his forefathers have left us. [7]


The possibilities that the Biblical character of Jesus was a spiritual configuration of Tutankhamun to represent the immortal Tutankhamun may seen by skeptics as improbable and unlikely, but there is no evidence that it is not possible. So with more archaeological finds and re-interpretations of older theories we may yet discover the authenticity of the Bible and question the many faiths based on its texts.

[4] Sigmund Freud and Moses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: