THE EGYPTIAN FOUNDATIONS OF GNOSTIC THOUGHT

Chapter Fourteen: The Memphite Theology of the Word: Gnosis as the Meta-
Rhetorical Response
There is little scholarly debate over the Memphite system existing as an
antecedent to the Heliopolitan. 1
Kees, for example, dates the Memphite to the period
between the Third and Fifth Dynasties, 2
while Morenz dates the latter to the transition
from the Fifth to Sixth Dynasty. 3
The uncertainty of an Old Kingdom dating for the
“Memphite Theology” does not change the relationship for purposes of rhetorical
analysis. 4
In the first instance the text refers to the Ennead of Atum, commenting as
follows:
His [Ptah] Ennead is before him as teeth and lips: they are the semen and hands
of Atum (and) the Ennead of Atum came into being as his semen by means of
his fingers. But now the Ennead (of Ptah) is the teeth and lips in this mouth,
which proclaims the name of everything from which Shu and Tefnut came
forth. 5
From this it is clear that the Memphite concern was not at all in overthrowing
the Heliopolitan view and substituting something radically different, rather the
Ennead is affirmed and it is only the creative process that is under revision here. 6
We
might say that the Memphite version of creation is a clarification of the Heliopolitan
system, one which seeks to usurp Atum with Ptah, for while Atum is granted his
1
This is, however, a complex issue. When I speak of the Memphite system I am referring to
the text that comes from the Shabaka stone whose Ur-text is dated anywhere from Old
Kingdom to New by Egyptologists, the latter view seeing it as an antique forgery as such.
There is clear evidence, however, for the establishment of Ptah, the Memphite creator-god,
in conjunction with the new capital built some 10 miles south and across the river from
Heliopolis by Menes following his unification of Upper and Lower Egypt in the First
Dynasty.
2
Kees, Götterglaube, 248.
3
Morenz, Egyptian Religion, 154.
4
See Frederick Junge, “Zur Fehldatierung des sog. Denkmals memphitischer Theologie,”
MDÄIK 29 (1973): 195-204, in which a date in the Ramesside period or later is proposed.
5
Hieroglyphic transcription from Breasted, “The Philosophy of a Memphite Priest,” plate II,
column 55.
6
L. Kákosy, “A Memphite Triad,” JEA 66 (1980): 53, “While the primitive form of the myth
of engendering by onanism never disappeared, the concept of creation in Heliopolis tended
to develop along more subtle lines. Since there is no proof that this process was induced by
Memphite influence, one would rather think that the transmission of ideas took place in a
Heliopolis-to-Memphis direction. That would entail that the Memphite creation myth was
formed of, or enriched by, elements adopted from anstract Heliopolitan doctrines.”