The Bible's Influence on the Religion of India

We in the AMAIC would certainly not agree with all of the conclusions arrived at in the following interesting article by Gene Matlock. We would suggest, however, that India was greatly influenced by the Bible.
Firstly by the Old Testament, when the exiled Jews came to influence the Persian Empire (uncluding India). Hence the Indian adoption of Abram and Sarai.
Then the New Testament, and Jesus Christ, thorugh the early Christian missionaries to India.

 
Article taken from: http://www.viewzone.com/davidkoresh.html

________________________________________

India's God Krishna Was the King of Jerusalem!
By Gene D. Matlock

What a strange world in which we live! The Catholic Church has always known that Christianity did not begin with Jesus Christ, but yet it tries to make us think it did.
St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) wrote: "This, in our day, is the Christian religion, not as having been unknown in former times, but as having recently received that name."
Eusebius of Caesarea (circa 283-371 AD) said: "The religion of Jesus Christ is neither new nor strange."
In Anacalypsis, The 17th century British orientalist and iconoclast, Godfrey Higgins, insisted that Christianity was already firmly in place in both the West and the East, many centuries before Jesus Christ was born. He said, The Crestians or Christians of the West probably descended directly from the Buddhists, rather than from the Brahmins. (Vol. 2, pp 438, 439.)
The existence of the Christians both in Europe and India, (existed) long anterior to the Christian era... (Vol 2, p. 202.) I think the most blind and credulous of devotees must allow that we have the existence of the Cristna of the Brahmins in Thrace, many hundred years before the Christian era-the birth of Jesus Christ. (Book X, p. 593.)
"Melito (a Christian bishop of Sardis) in the year 170, claims the patronage of the emperor, for the now so-called Christian religion, which he calls "our philosophy," on account of its high antiquity, has having been imported from countries lying beyond the limits of the Roman empire, in the region of his ancestor Augustus, who found the importation ominous of good fortune to his government." This is an absolute demonstration that Christianity did not originate in Judea, which was a Roman province, but really was an exotic oriental fable, imported from India, and that Paul was doing as he claimed, viz: preaching a God manifest in the flesh who had been "believed in the world" centuries before his time, and a doctrine which had already been preached "unto every creature under heaven." (Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions; T. W. Doane, p. 409.)
Religious historians have for hundreds of years struggled to find out how and why the stories about Jesus and Krishna, who were born 2,000 years apart, are so nearly identical.

• Both Christ and Krishna descended from Noah.
• The future births of both messiahs were predicted ahead of time.
• Christ was descended from Abraham
• Krishna was the father of Abraham (Brahma).
• Christ was at once a Koresh, a Hebrew, and a Yehudi.
• Krishna was at once a Kurus, an Abhira, and a Yadava.
• Christ was an incarnation of Yah-Veh.
• Krishna was at once an incarnation of Vishnu and Shiva.
• Christ's first name, Jesus, was Yeshua.
• A title of Krishna, meaning "love; devotion," was Yesu. Even today, many Hindu parents name their sons, Yesu Krishna.
• Both men were born of virgins and in a stable.
• Krishna's mother was named Devaki.
• Jesus mother was called Mary.
• Krishna did not have an earthly father as such, but a protector, named Vasudeva.
• Jesus did not have an earthly father as such, but a mortal protector named Joseph.
• An evil king tried to kill Christ and Krishna when they were both infants.
• To protect the infant Jesus, Joseph and Mary took him to Maturai, Egypt.
• To protect the infant Krishna, his parents, Vasudeva and Devaki, took him to Mathura, India.
• It was predicted that both men would die to atone for the sins of their people.
• As you have probably noticed, they took refuge in places having almost identical names.
• Both men preached to their people.
• Christ was crucified and then resurrected. Krishna was killed by a hunter's arrow and impaled on a tree. Later, he returned to life.
• Christ was crucified in Jerusalem.
• Some Hindu scholars think that Krishna died in Jerusalem, having gone there when his coastal city of Dwarka sank under the sea. Others say he went to Iraq.
• Christ appeared after his "death." Krishna appeared after his "death."
• Both of them have a major holiday dedicated to them on December 25th.
• Christ had a female admirer named Mary Magdalene. Krishna had a female admirer named Marya Maghadalena.

Fanatically sectarian Christians and Hindus alike militantly reject the idea that the stories of these two deities are related. The Christians accuse the Hindus of blurring their identities on purpose. Some even claim that the Devil himself is the culprit.The Hindus reciprocate accordingly. Unfortunately, neither side can prove or disprove anything. In this article, I will attempt to clear up this mystery once and for all.

The Hindu Equivalent of our Old Testament Story of Abraham.

The story begins with our Abraham or Brahma as the Hindus called him. His father was Lord Krishna; his brother was Mahesh a.k.a Maheshvara who would be our Moses (Heb: Moshe).
The Hindu triad consists of the Gods Brahma, the equivalent of our God, and Gods Shiva and Vishnu. Actually Shiva and Vishnu are one and the same deities. Together, they are Brahma (God). Today, in India, there are only two temples dedicated to God Brahma because the Hindus say mankind is not yet ready to worship such a lofty concept.
Hindu Proof That Jesus Is the Son of God!
The Bible tells us that Jesus was both Shiva and Vishnu, for Jesus' biblical names are Isa/Isha (Shiva), Yeshua (Skt. Yishvara, pronounced in Sanskrit as Yeshwara), Kristos, and Yesu, another name of Krishna . Even in India, Lord Krishna was and still is called Yesu Krishna and Kristna. These names prove to us that Jesus was both Shiva and Vishnu, thus making Jesus the begotten son of the Unbegotten-Brahma.

Picture of Christ.

The preceding information shows us that the Hindus are as Christian as the Christians are. Morever, the Hindus can prove that Jesus was the son of God, but we have to accept this as a matter of faith only. Even so, there is no lack of Christian sects wanting the Hindus to "convert" to their way of thinking although we must credit the Hindus with the honor of proving to us that Jesus is the son of God. But the Hindus don't need to convert to the spiritual knowledge they bequeathed to us. They were "converted" thousands of years before our Jesus was born. I say, leave them be.
Since Krishna was not born of man, he was not actually the earthly father of Brahma and Mahesh. Therefore, he himself was the protector (Tara) of Brahma. In Sanskrit, Tara means "savior; protector." It is a term generally used with the gods Rudra, Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma. Even our Old Testament says that the father (protector) of Abraham was Terah (Genesis 11:26.) The Bible tells us that Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings. (Genesis 12:19-20.). The Hindu holy books also tell us that a blood relationship existed between them. The Puranas relate Sarasvati to Brahma and Vishnu. Most frequently, she is associated with Brahma. Her connection with him dates earlier than to any other God. She is portrayed mostly as his wife and occasionally as his daughter. When Vishnu's popularity in India increased, myths relating Saraswati to him appeared. (Ref: Sarasvati and the Gods; www.vishvarupa.com.) Therefore, Brahma or Vishnu would also have been the Tara (Terah) of Sarasvati because of her divine origins.

Brahm (Abraham)

Sarasvati (Sarah)
Abraham or Brahma's home was the land of Haran (Genesis 1:4.) Haran was the coastal principality governed by Krishna. It was even named after him because Hara (Sun God) is another name of Krishna. Brahma/Abraham was 75 years old when he left Haran.
Just as Christ was crucified on a cross and then returned to life, Krishna, also known as Haran, was crucified on a tree and then returned to life. This fact appears to cause some confusion in The Bible. (Read Genesis 11:26-31).
There is also another "Haran" in India-today's state of Haryana. It is the region where Abraham decided to stop making idols and worship only one God. Brahmavarta, a region in Northeastern Haryana, is said to be the place where mankind was first created. (Varta=Dwelling.) Brahmavarta was the site of the Kuruksetra War between the Kurus and Pandavas, in which Lord Krishna distinguished himself. An ancient and holy river, now dried up, the Sarasvati, once flowed through Brahmavarta. The Hakra (the biblical Haggar) was a tributary of the Sarasvati. The relationships of these three geographical entities make sense. If Brahma provided the channel or bed for the Sarasvati river, Brahmavarta could easily have been the symbolical father or brother of Sarasvati. Hakra (Haggar), being a tributary of Sarasvati, depended on Sarasvati . So what were Abraham, Sarah, and Haggar? People, things, or places?

....

I have stated that the Bible mentions Haran and Haryana. The Hindu holy books also say that Brahma/Abrahan lived in Ur of the Chaldees. Ur was a Sumerian name for "town; city." Chaldee (pronounced Kaldee) derives from the Sanskrit Kaul, a Brahman caste, and Deva (demi-god). The North Indian Kauldevas worshiped idols representing their ancestors. According to the Hindus, Brahma married Sarasvati in Chaldea, the part that is now Afghanistan.
Northern Afghanistan was called Uttara Kuru and was a great center of learning. An Indian woman went there to study and received the title of Vak i.e. Saraisvati (Lady Sarah). It is believed that Brahm, her teacher, was so impressed by her beauty, education, and powerful intellect, that he married her. (The Hindu History, by Ashkoy Kumar Mazumdar; p. 48, in passim.) Lord Krishna, the divine father (Terah/T‚ra) of Brahma/Abraham, was the king of Haran, with the seaport of Dwarka as its capital.
In about 1900 BC, hundreds of thousands of native Indians emptied Northern and Central India and fled to the Middle East after Krishna's Dwarka sank under the water.

Krishna gathered his family together and fled either to the Middle East or to what is now Iraq. Only some gigantic natural disasters, such as earthquakes and floods could have caused such an exodus. It was at this time that the Saraisvati and the Indus changed their proper beds. The Saraisvati dried up.

Map showing the path of the Sarasvati before it dried up.
The drying up of the Saraisvati... led to a major relocation of the population centered around the Sindhu and the Sarasvati valleys... caused a migration westward from India. It is soon after this time that the Indic element begins to appear all over West Asia, Egypt, and Greece. (Indic Ideas in the Graeco-Roman World, by Subhash Kak, taken from IndiaStar online literary magazine; p. 14.)
And Joshua said unto all the people, Your fathers dwelt... in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor, and they served other gods.
Many people don't understand what is meant by Joshua's remark about "the other side of the flood."
And Joshua said unto all the people, Your fathers dwelt... in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor, and they served other gods.
And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan... (Joshua 24:2-3.)
Many people don't understand what is meant by Joshua's remark about "the other side of the flood." They think he was referring to the Noachide flood. He was referring to the time when God Krishna's Dwarka and Haran province, in today's Gujarat, sank under water in about 1900 BC. Abraham, Sarah, and their followers escaped southward, to the coastal ports of Kalyan and Sopara (Sophir or Sauvira), in Maharashthra. From there, they sailed northward to the Middle East. Sarah (Sarsvati) embarked from the port of Kalyan. At one time, Kalyan was located closer to the coast, but is now located more than 50 miles inland. Sarasvati is the patron saint of Kalyan. The patron saint of Sophir or Sauvira was Parasu Rama (possibly a name of our biblical Abraham/Brahma).
And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan... (Joshua 24:2-3.)
Indian Author Paramesh Choudhury, author of The India We Have Lost, claims that Krishna and his family probably fled to Iraq. But I'm certain that they went to Jerusalem. The word Jerusalem is derived from Sanskrit: Yadu-Ishalayam, meaning "The Holy Rock of the Yadu Tribe." Lord Krishna was a Yadu. The Moslems still revere this huge rock under the Dome of the Rock on Jerusalem Temple Mount.

Temple [top] Mount and Dome of the Rock. [bottom] Abraham's tomb.
Until now, I have been wondering why Krishna's name did not appear in Jerusalem after his arrival there. Yet, the name of the king of Jerusalem, Melchizedek, the mentor of Abraham, did. I once thought that Melchizedek was the name of a certain person. I made this mistake by thinking that a prince and a son of a Kassite king, Melik-Sadaksina, was a supernaturally endowed prince, magician and spiritual giant. I thought he had accompanied Krishna, Abraham, and Sarah to the Middle East. Later on, I came to realize that the Sanskrit word Sadhaka applies to anyone who is an adept, a magician, one possessed of supernatural powers gained by worshipping a deity or by uttering magical chants.
I have additionally shown in this article that the New Testament words for Jesus all refer to Lord Krishna and his holy names. The early Christians were convinced that Melchizedek was just a prior incarnation of Jesus Christ, The remains of the Nag Hammadi manuscript entitled Melchizedek seem to confirm this. Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem and mentor of his son Abraham, was none other than ancient India's God Krishna. The early Christians thought that Jesus was a reincarnation of Krishna, for who else had the name Yesu Kristna, Isa, Krishna, etc.?
St. Paul states in the New Testament book of Hebrews:
Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec. (6:20.) For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him...(7:1); For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him. (7:;10);...what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec...(7:11); Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec (7:17);.

Melchisedek (Krishna)
In closing this article, I want to mention the dissatisfaction I have always had with fanatical religious sectarians who yell that only they are right and that everybody else is wrong. They often insult, deprecate, mock, and reject those with whom they disagree, hoping to shut the formers' mouths. In many cases, these religious squabbles over suspected "differences" cause widespread bloodshed and misery in the world. I am a Roman Catholic and proud of it. But it grieves me when I hear priests, nuns and laity preach that anyone who isn't a Catholic is hell-bound.
The word "Catholic" itself derives from the Sanskrit Ketu-Loka, meaning "Universal Leader." But how can a religion be "universal" if it is exclusive, locking out nations like India who not only gave Catholics their own bible, but even the Christ they worship? I have shown how nearly parallel our bible and the Hindu holy books concur in almost every way-linguistically, culturally, spiritually, etc. Even the incestuous relationship between Brahma and Sarasvati squares with that of Abraham and Sarah. India more than qualifies to be the real holy land of all mankind. The main differences between Christians and Hindus arise from the fact that the Hindu form of Christianity stayed behind in India, and that the western Christianity we know was exported abroad. Naturally, geographical separation has caused some variations in the two similar teachings, as well as culturally. Additionally, we have to keep in mind that for many hundreds of years, these stories were passed down orally, from father to son. Changes, embellishments, and varying opinions crept through the woodwork.
It is a strange anomaly that our Christian sects want to convert the Hindus to the same religious teachings the latter gave to the world and still practice!
I have amply demonstrated that all of us, no matter what our respective religions and nationalities, are grandchildren of India, Will this knowledge help keep us from tearing ourselves and the world apart?
Addendum:
If, until now, you are still unconvinced that Melchizedek was Lord Krishna, and that Jesus was an incarnation of Krishna (Melchizedek) as Paul himself explained, I have no other recourse but to give you solid proof directly from the mouths of the Hindus themselves! This should put an end to the question. It is a verifiable fact that one of the names of Krishna was Sadhaka. Being a king, Krishna would have been addressed as Malika (King) Sadhaka). If you are still doubtful, go to the web and type in Krishna Sadhaka. You'll instantly get all the proof you'll; ever need. Note: This article is a chapter from Gene's upcoming book, now in preparation: Searching for God -- Now a Valid Science! It will be released in autumn, 2007.

....

New Testament's Magi Incident Absorbed into Buddhism

 

Childhood of Jesus

 

Before going on to record Kersten's amazing comparisons between Jesus and the Buddha, (see next post), we should like to pause for a moment to touch upon a fascinating matter that the author has raised regarding the Nativity of Jesus and the Magi's star, on the one hand, and the Tibetan practice of locating child reincarnations of deceased Buddhist Dalai Lamas on the other.
 

In his 'Who Were the Three Wise Men?' (Chapter 4), Kersten firstly concludes on p. 63 that:
 

"At this distance in time it is well-nigh impossible to prove that the Magi came from either Persia or from India".

Then he introduces his fascinating new twist:

Yet it is absolutely amazing how much the story of the three wise men corresponds with accounts of the methods by which reincarnations of great Buddhist dignitaries are located in Tibet after their demise, even to this day. The way in which such a search is carried out, following ancient and traditional ritual, is described in the present Dalai Lama's own accounts of his 'discovery' as a little boy, and in the book by the Austrian Heinrich Harrer, who spent seven years at the court of the god-king in Lhasa.

And on p. 64, Kersten goes on to write regarding the 1937 search for the child of destiny:

… Most important to these preparations were the pronouncements of the astrologers, without whose calculations no significant moves could be made at all. At last, in 1937, various expeditions were dispatched from Lhasa to seek out the holy child according to the heavenly omens, in the direction indicated. Each group included wise and worthy lamas of highly distinguished status in the theocracy. In addition to their servants, each group took costly gifts with them ….
 

Is this yet another far eastern tradition that has arisen from a biblical prototype, namely the Gospel account of the Magi's visit to the Christ-child in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1-11)?

....

Hebrew Wisdom In Egypt

PARALLEL LIVES:

JOSEPH OF EGYPT

AND THOMAS AQUINAS

by
 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

This article, entitled in my original version of it, “Go To Thomas”, was inspired by Pope Pius XI’s comparison of St. Thomas Aquinas with Joseph of Egypt in his 1923 encyclical letter,

Studiorum Ducem.

Introduction

… if we are to avoid the errors which are the source and foundation-head of all the miseries of our time, the teaching of Aquinas must be adhered to more religiously than ever. For St. Thomas refutes the theories propounded by Modernists in every sphere, in philosophy, by protecting … the force and power of the human mind and by demonstrating the existence of God by the most cogent arguments; in dogmatic theology, by distinguishing the supernatural from the natural order and explaining the reasons for belief and the dogmas themselves; in theology, by showing that the articles of faith are not based upon mere opinion but on truth and therefore cannot possibly change; in exegesis, by transmitting the true conception of divine inspiration; in the science of morals, sociology and law, by laying down sound principles of legal and social, commutative and distributive, justice and explaining the relation between justice and charity; in the theory of asceticism by his precepts concerning the Christian life and his confutation of the enemies of the religious orders in his own day. Lastly, against the much vaunted liberty of the human mind and its independence in regard to God he asserts the rights of primary Truth and the authority over us of the supreme Master. It is therefore clear why Modernists are so amply justified in fearing no Doctor of the Church so much as Thomas Aquinas.

Accordingly, just as it was said of the Egyptians of old in time of famine: Go to Joseph, so that they should receive a supply of corn from him to nourish their bodies, so We now say to all such as are desirous of the truth: Go to Thomas, and ask him to give you from his ample store the food of substantial doctrine wherewith to nourish your souls into eternal life.

So wrote Pope Pius XI in his encyclical, Studiorum Ducem (29 June, 1923), to commemorate the sixth centenary of St. Thomas Aquinas. Holy Mother Church wants Catholics to “Go to Thomas” in his living unity; to embrace him as the master of their philosophical education, in order to learn how to think for themselves, to acquire knowledge, so as to be able to resist error and restore civilisation. Go and listen to St. Thomas, she tells us, and do everything that he tells you. If this sounds too much like Our Lady’s message at Cana, concerning her divine Son: ‘Do whatever he tells you’ (John 2:5), it is because – as St. Thomas himself would tell us (Summa Theologiae, Ia-IIae, q.28, a.1 and a.2):

Love seeks to be united with its object, in fact or in affection. Hence union with the beloved thing is an effect of love.

 

And:

 

 

Another effect of love is that lover and beloved dwell in each other in some manner. The lover says, “I have you in my heart”, or: “this project is close to my heart”. And, speaking of the love of God, scripture says (I John 4:16): “he that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him”. Thus a kind of mutual indwelling of lover and beloved is an effect of love.

That for St. Thomas the exclusive object of his love was the Person of Jesus Christ himself is attested, for one, by the sacristan who saw the saint raised nearly two cubits above the ground in ecstasy, and who stood for a long time gazing at him. Suddenly the sacristan heard a voice proceed from the image of the Crucifix to which the Doctor was turned praying in tears: ‘Thou hast written well of Me, Thomas. What reward shall I give thee for thy work? – ‘None but Thyself, O Lord!’

Given this intense union between Jesus Christ and his beloved disciple, French philosopher Jacques Maritain concluded rightly in regard to what our attitude before St. Thomas ought to be (St. Thomas Aquinas, Sheed and Ward, 1948, pp. 79-80):

… if it is true that Thomas Aquinas, the common Doctor of the Church is, after Jesus Christ, the Master par excellence, the ever living Master who from the heart of the beatific vision watches over his doctrine and makes it fruitful in souls, then …[one ought] to put oneself really as regards St. Thomas in the position of a living recipient from a living donor, of one who is formed and enlightened facing one who forms and enlightens ….

Pope Pius XI was able to derive rich nourishment from the Genesis text “Go to Joseph and do what he tells you” (41:55), and apply it to St. Thomas Aquinas. The wisdom of the Joseph of old anticipates - and the wisdom of St. Thomas harkens back to - the Lord of Cana and his Blessed Mother. This marvellous symmetry of God’s salvific plan ought not surprise those who believe that the Supreme Being is an absolute unity. Does not his Book of salvation, the Bible, reveal a profound symmetry and unity of thought; especially as is expressed by the Hebrew genius for chiastic structure?

That God is absolute unity is demonstrated by St. Thomas himself, who even from his childhood had, according to Pope Pius XI, unceasingly pondered on the nature of God: “What is God?” (Stud. Duc.). As an adult Thomas would reveal, in the first part of his Summa Theologiae, the fruits of this long pondering in his heart (cf. Genesis 37:11 & Luke 2:19). As a conclusion to one of his dissertations on the Divine attribute of Unity, St. Thomas wrote (S.T., Ia, q.11, a.4): “Since being and oneness are really the same, it follows that the more perfect being is the more perfect unity. God is absolute being; therefore God is absolute unity”.

The Church herself, the interpreter of Scripture, clearly attests the symmetry and unity of the Scriptures by finding, firstly:

- from a Christological point of view, references to the Messiah throughout the entire Scriptures.

And then:

- in the case of Mary, the Church draws inspiration especially from the Proto-evangelium (Genesis 3:15); and what might be called “The Heroine Books” (Ruth, Judith, Esther); and also details about other famous women, such as Sarah and Deborah; all these beautiful signposts leading to the Woman of the New dispensation. As well, the Wisdom books are overflowing with ‘Mariological’ references. To give just one example, Sirach 24:3-, “I came forth from the mouth of the Most High”, etc., is used by the Church as the opening Hymn of Vespers for the common of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Finally:

- regarding St. John he Baptist, about whom we read only in the New Testament, the angel Gabriel told his father Zechariah that he was the one who was to come “with the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17); that is, an Elijah-type, not Elijah the person. Our Lord later confirmed this symbolic link (e.g. Mark 9:13). So, we would expect to gain illumination about the Baptist from meditating upon the life of the prophet Elijah. [Similarly Frits Albers, in his book St. Joseph (Call for Mary Publications, 1998), has applied aspects of the life of the patriarch Joseph to St. Joseph himself – truly also a ‘man of dreams’ (cf. Matthew 1:20; 2:13,19)].

We are on very safe ground in all of this. And we can also confidently follow Pope Pius XI when he carries biblical comparisons over even into post-biblical times – seeing a similarity between the mission of the patriarch Joseph and that of Aquinas.*

* Certain writers for the World Apostolate of Fatima (formerly the Blue Army) have pointed out how aspects of the biblical Book of Esther marvellously prefigure the apparitions & messages of Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima (C20th). I have developed this insight in my book, The Five First Saturdays (Call for Mary publications, 1994), available on-line.

To explore and develop this particular – and at first unexpected – likeness will be a consistent theme throughout the first part of this article.

 

I: Joseph and Thomas - Builders in Stone

It cannot be regarded as an accident that, just prior to the birth of Joseph, and also of St. Thomas, a holy man – Jacob, in the case of Joseph, and St. Francis of Assisi, in the case of Thomas – had a vision of a staircase, or ladder, leading to heaven, with angels ascending and descending it.

[Jacob] had a dream; a ladder [staircase] was there, standing on the ground with its top reaching to heaven; and there were angels of God going up it and coming down. And Yahweh was there, standing over him, saying, ‘I am Yahweh, the God of Abraham, your father, and the God of Isaac …’. Then Jacob awoke from his sleep, and said: ‘… How awe-inspiring this place is! This is nothing less than the House of God; this is the Gate of Heaven!’ (Genesis 28:12-13, 16, 17).

Lovers of the Holy Rosary would know of the vision of St. Francis of Assisi, who saw a ladder reaching from the ground to heaven, with Our Lady at the top, as the entrance to heaven. This magnificent vision has deep Mariological significance.

It seems that the vision of Jacob may actually have been enshrined in Egypt. Archaeology has shown that (presuming the correctness of the identification of Joseph with the architect and sage, Imhotep) the patriarch Joseph was the first in Egypt to build on a grand scale in stone. Thanks to the recent revision of ancient history, in favour of proving the Old Testament to be historically accurate, we can now enhance our knowledge about Joseph in Egypt; for the revised history has well-nigh conclusively identified him as the Vizier, Imhotep, who indeed saved Egypt from a seven-year famine.*

[* Imhotep belonged to the 3^rd Dynasty of Egyptian history. But one of the best known accounts of his intervention in Egypt, as recorded in the “Famine Stela”, dates from later Ptolemaïc times, much later than Joseph. Of Imhotep we read in Dr. J. Davidovits’ The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved (Dorset Press, NY, 1990, pp. 127-128): “Imhotep left an unforgettable legacy. Historically, the lives of few men are celebrated for 3,000 years [actually more like 2,000 – author’s comment], but Imhotep was renowned from the height of his achievements, at about 2,700 BC [sic], into the Greco-Roman period. Imhotep was so highly honoured as a physician and sage that he came to be counted among the gods. He was deified in Egypt 2,000 [actually 1,000 – author] years after his death, when he was appropriated by the Greeks, who called him Imuthes [Imouthes] and identified him with the god Asclepius, son of Apollo, their great sage and legendary discoverer of medicine. Imhotep wrote the earliest “wisdom literature”, venerated maxim … and Egypt considered him as the greatest of the scribes … [his] name and titles … are listed in an equal place of honor as those of the king … Chancellor of the King of Lower Egypt, the first after the King of Upper Egypt. Administrator of the Great Palace, Physician, Hereditary Noble, High Priest of Anu (i.e., On or Heliopolis), Chief Prefect for Pharaoh and … Sculptor, and Maker of Stone Vessels”.].

Imhotep has been described as “one of the few men of genius recorded in the history of ancient Egypt: he is one of the fixed stars in the Egyptian firmament”. Most notably, Imhotep built for Pharaoh the famous Step Pyramid, which stands proudly at Saqqara even to this day. Might one suggest now that Joseph, as Imhotep, built the Step Pyramid as a commemoration of the staircase beheld by Jacob in his vision. (That Jacob himself had already commemorated his vision a Bethel with an elaborate altar is clear from Genesis 28:20-22  and 35:1-8).

St. Tomas Aquinas likewise built ‘in stone’ inasmuch as his life’s work is durable and will last forever: “… the achievement which dominates the flux of the ages like some huge peaceful pyramid was performed in haste, but betrays no sign of haste, because it overflowed from the fullness of contemplation in a heart united to eternity” (Maritain, op. cit., p. 10). At the canonisation of St. Thomas, in 1319, there were recalled the words of the Archbishop of Naples, that friar Thomas “would have no successor until the end of time”. And Pope Leo XIII would later write to the same effect (in Aeterni Patris, 1879) that: “… [Thomas] seems to have bequeathed to his successors only the possibility of imitating him, having deprived them of the possibility of rivalling him”.

Dreams and Visions

‘Men of profound contemplation’, ‘visionaries’, ‘interpreters of deep secrets’; these are some of the terms that one could use to describe Joseph and Thomas. And with these descriptions we come to a major point of comparison between them, and of distinction from others. The fact is that they – so like each other in many ways – were quite different from the common rank and file of human beings. They drank more deeply from the spring of life (John 4:14) than did the rest; than even their mentors.

“No one else ever born has been like Joseph” (Sirach 49:15) is how the inspired writer sums up the great Patriarch. Pharaoh had asked his ministers concerning Joseph:

‘Can we find any other man like this, possessing the spirit of God?’

So Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘Seeing that God has given you knowledge of all this, there can be no one as wise and intelligent as you. You shall be my Chancellor, and all my people shall respect your orders; only this throne shall set me above you …. I hereby make you governor of the whole land of Egypt’.

Pharaoh took the ring from his hand and put it on Joseph’s. He clothed him in fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He made him ride in the best chariot he had after his own, and they cried before him ‘Abrek’ [thought to mean, ‘make way’]. Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I am Pharaoh: without your permission no one is to move hand or foot throughout the land of Egypt’ (Genesis 41:38-41, 42-43,44).

A similarly all-inclusive protocol was imposed at the convent of St. Jacques when Thomas taught there. All the religious present in the convent sat before him on the straw and listened to his lectures. None was excused attendance at the theological course. Moreover, a great multitude of students from outside attended. Thomas became famous at once and everybody hastened to his lectures. He had arrived in the heat of the battle, when error was multiple and ubiquitous; he had to grapple with opponents on all sides.

The superiority of the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas over that of other teachers has been confirmed by one after another Pope. Now here is a remarkable fact: whilst many of the hierarchy tried to discourage Thomas – and, after his death, Thomism – the Popes, from the very beginning, not only encouraged him in his work, but also discerned in the Thomistic synthesis an incomparable value and quality, and considered that in it the whole Christian tradition had borne fruit. To give just one, relatively modern, example of a Pope’s view of the doctrinal superiority of Thomas, I quote from Pope Leo XIII’s Letter (of 30^th December, 1982) to the Jesuits: “If there are doctors to be found who disagree with St. Thomas, however great their merits may be in other respects, hesitation is not permissible. The former must be sacrificed to the latter”.

Jealousy

Naturally this superiority, this blessedness bestowed by God upon Joseph and Thomas, was sensed by those who knew them. Happily, many rejoiced to see such illumining portents in so dark a firmament. But unfortunately, also, there resided in the hearts of some - in those who were not prepared to praise God for his generous gift - an irrational and consuming jealousy.

‘Here comes the man of dreams’ snarled Joseph’s brothers when his father, Jacob, had sent his young son to them at Shechem, to see how they were faring with their flocks (Genesis 37:12-14,19). [Note that, whilst Joseph’s brothers were to be found in the field, the more contemplative Joseph had been at home with his parents – at home symbolising his preference for the interior, over the exterior, way of life]. ‘Come on, let us kill him and throw him into some well; we can say that a wild beast devoured him. Then we shall see what becomes of his dreams’ (Genesis 37:20; cf. Wisdom 2:10-20).

His brothers were probably mystified as to how their father Jacob could have favoured Joseph, the dreamer, over the rest of them, investing Joseph with a coat of many colours (or “a coat of long sleeves”). “When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not say a civil word to him’ (37:4). Most irritating of all was Joseph’s tendency to have dreams in which he saw himself exalted over the rest of his family. His father and mother, symbolised respectively by the sun and moon, and his brothers by the stars, were all seen in Joseph’s dream to bow down and honour him (37:9-11). These dreams came directly from God; they were not the idle fantasies of some pseudo-mystic, who believed himself to be better than the rest.

Rightly only in an allegorical sense were Joseph’s brothers able to report back to Jacob that his son was ‘dead’, inasmuch as he was ‘dead’ to his familiar way of life. Through the crisis to which his brothers had so cruelly subjected him, the young Joseph found a door opening out onto a new God-given mission to come to the rescue of a starving world. While Joseph was an enigma to his entire family, the reaction to his dreams by his brothers was startlingly different from that of his father, who – though he chided the young man – “did not forget” what Joseph had told him. Jacob was visionary enough in his own right to ponder the matter in his heart with his customary deep prayer – as would later be the constant habit of his ‘daughter’, the Virgin Mary (cf. Genesis 37:11 & Luke 2:19).

St. Albert the Great, Thomas’s mentor, had likewise perceived, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, that there was something very special about the young Thomas. His students had nicknamed Thomas “the dumb ox [of Sicily]”, because he was large of size and naturally taciturn. But Albert made a prediction – that the bellowing of Thomas would one day resound throughout the whole world.

The same sort of envy that Joseph had unintentionally aroused in his brothers had unfortunately afflicted many of Thomas’s colleagues as well. We learn this, for example, from the following passage by Maritain (op. cit., p. 75, emphasis added):

St. Thomas was an accomplished teacher because he was ever so much more than a teacher, because his pedagogic discourse came down whole from the very simple heights of contemplation. Think of him in that great disputation he held triumphantly at Paris just before Easter in 1270, on the most controverted point of his teaching, the thesis of the unicity of substantial form, against John Peckham, Regent of the Friars Minor, and later, Archbishop of Canterbury. The Bishop of Paris, the masters in theology, all the doctors were determined to ruin him. They were inflamed by jealousy or exasperated by the calm way in which he broke with hallowed routine, and their eyes darted threats, while their expression was full of menace, against him. They had reason enough, indeed, to be disconcerted for he was not one of them, he derived the origin of wisdom from a more exalted source than they did, from the still unruffled silence which is the father of preaching.

The doctrine of St. Thomas was far more profound than that of the Averroïst philosophers who idolized Aristotle – or, at least, their version of Aristotle – and of those self-styled Augustinian theologians who were afraid of the mind; that “short-sighted crowd [who] rose up against him and strove to rend the seamless garment of his too pure doctrine” (ibid., p. 24). Friar Thomas, Tocco tell us, was a marvellous contemplative (vir miro modo contemplativus). He passed his life in a sort of perpetual rapture and ecstasy. He prayed unceasingly wept, fasted, yearned. The mind of St. Thomas was virtually seraphic, and for this reason he has been called the Angelic Doctor. “It is not without reason”, wrote Pope Pius XI (op. cit.), “that [Thomas] has been given the sun for a device; for he both brings the light of learning into the minds of men and fires their hearts and wills with the virtues”.

That Thomas was prone to deep fits of abstraction is clear from the following two famous episodes, as recalled by Maritain (op. cit., pp. 12-13):

The faculty of abstraction, which had developed in him to an extraordinary degree, sometimes played him tricks. Dining once wit St. Louis (whose invitation he had been compelled by the order of the Prior to accept, because it meant tearing himself away from the Summa Theologica which he was dictating at the time), he suddenly brought his fist down on the table and exclaimed: “There is the conclusive argument against the Manichaean heresy!” “Master”, said the Prior, “be careful: you are sitting at the moment at the table of the King of France”, and plucked him violently by the sleeve to bring him out of his meditation. The King had a secretary quickly summoned and writing materials.

Another time, in Italy, a Cardinal asked to see him. Friar Thomas came down from his work, saw nobody and went on meditating; then exclaimed in delight: “Now I’ve got what I was looking for”. He had again to be plucked by the sleeve to take notice of the Lord Cardinal, who, receiving no mark of reverence, had begun to despise him.

 

The Fiery Ordeal

Whilst Scripture does not inform us as to what was the reaction by Joseph’s mother to his series of fascinating dreams, we do know that in the case of St. Thomas, his mother, the Countess Theodora, did everything in her power to thwart him. She, according to Maritain, “who was to stop at nothing to prevent [Thomas] following the will of God, was a woman of great virtue and self-denial” (ibid., p. 2). Be that as it may, she was obviously not in tune with the “Father’s business” (Luke 2:49). And so we find the Countess dispatching a special messenger to Thomas’ brothers, ordering them, as they respected her maternal blessing, to arrest Thomas and send him back to her under escort. These brothers – like Joseph’s – were able to be located in the field (at Acquapendente on military campaign with the Emperor, Frederick II).

And Thomas’s crime?

He had chosen to be a Dominican rather than a Benedictine. Whereas, in those days, the Dominican Order was a new phenomenon (two decades old), little respected, the Benedictine vocation was a sort of State affair, gratifying alike to God, the Emperor and the family. ‘No’, said Thomas, ‘I will be a Preacher’. That was God’s will and so the matter was final as far as he was concerned. Thomas must have worn the white habit of St. Dominic as proudly as had the young Joseph worn the “coat of many colours” (or “of long sleeves”) given him by his beloved father. But just as Joseph was stripped of that precious garment by his rage-filled brothers, who then cast him into a well, so did Thomas’s brothers attempt to strip him of his coat of many graces by a fountain (or well).

The Saint, however, wrapped himself so closely in his Dominican habit that they were unable to tear it from him.

Who can imagine the agony of soul that St. Thomas must then have been experiencing? (Cf. Genesis 42:21). Though he was taken captive, his will could not be brought into submission. “Brothers, mother, prison, guile and violence, nothing could shake his determination” (ibid., p. 64). Why was young Thomas so obstinate? He had to be about his Father’s business, and that was something that neither the Countess Theodora, nor her sons, could begin to understand.

Thomas was probably of similar age to Joseph (cf. Genesis 37:2) at the time of this crisis with his family. He had been forced to defy the will of his father and mother, and of affronting the wrath of his relations, who were not persons of feeble energy or easily placated. As he was to write later (S.T., II-IIae, q.189, a.6):

When parents are not in such dire necessity that they need the services of their children, children may adopt the religious life without the consent of their parents and even in defiance of their expressed wishes, because, once the age of puberty is over, anyone sui juris is entitled to please himself in the choice of a career, especially if the service of God is involved; it is better to obey the Father of spirits, in order that we may have life, than those who have begotten us in the flesh.

We know from history – and we can infer from the Bible (Genesis 41:45) * - that Joseph (Imhotep) was a priest. He was in fact the chief priest of the sacred city of On, that the Greeks would later call Heliopolis (the “City of the Sun”).

[* Regarding this point, I give here Professor A. Yahuda’s expert explanation, in The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian, Vol. I (Oxford UP, 1933): “The narrator was quite clear as to the hierarchic significance of such a union [of Joseph with the priest of On’s daughter], and of the high position occupied by the priests of On. For the Egyptians On was the holy city par excellence. It was regarded as the seat of the most powerful of the cosmic gods … and it was occupied by a numerous and important body of priests (Erman, Relig. 12). … The marriage of Joseph to the daughter of the priest of On therefore signified the reception of the foreigner into the highest priestly caste, and by his elevation to the rank of ‘father of God’ he was assigned one of the most eminent sacerdotal dignities of ancient Egypt”. Similarly, Daniel would later be placed over all the wise men and magicians of Chaldea (Daniel 2:48)].

 

Pharaoh had given Joseph for his wife, Asenath, the daughter of the priest of On. Though blessed from birth, Joseph received this great honour of the priesthood only after his passing through a fiery ordeal.

St. Thomas too, having been purified “like gold and silver” in the refiner’s fire of tribulation, arose a priest “fit to bring offerings to the Lord” (Malachi 3:3). He had “moved from one perfection to another, and a more difficult one” (Maritain, op cit., ibid.).

The Practicality of Wisdom

The world – as typified by the activities of the brothers, respectively, of Joseph and Thomas – is full of self-important people; men and women of affairs, bureaucrats, technocrats, complex people with no interior life, who are frantically busy about everything, and nothing in particular. These worldlings have not much time for the contemplative souls like Joseph and Thomas, whom they consider to be impractical ‘dreamers’; whose serene simplicity is often misconstrued by them as being an inadequate and disinterested response to society. In a world obsessed with conformity, consensus and political correctness, genuine individuals like Joseph and Thomas can be regarded as misfits.

This is most especially true of our modern, technological world that has almost totally abandoned any interest in contemplative metaphysics.

Only fellow-dreamers, like Joseph’s Pharaoh, or like St. Thomas’s patron, St. Louis IX of France, can really understand this type. In fact it was owing to the dream of the Pharaoh that Joseph rose to prominence in Egypt, and became the virtual ruler of that country. And King Louis took counsel from Thomas, confided in him at evening the difficulties that harrassed him and in the morning received the solutions.

But if Joseph’s, St. Thomas’s, siblings imagined their brothers of dreams to be the most useless and impractical of persons, they were quite wrong. Wisdom is eminently practical because it goes to first principles. “It is she who orders all things for good” (Wisdom 8:1). What impresses one from reading Joseph’s written account of his own life (Genesis 37:2-50:21) * – for he too was an inspired scribe of sacred doctrine – is the fact that he was so competent in the management of his affairs that he was left unsupervised by his respective masters: firstly, by the commander of the guard (39:3-6); then by the prison guard (vv. 22-23); then by Pharaoh (41:41,44). Consider the thorough manner in which Joseph organised Egypt, in order to cope with a mother of all famines lasting for many years that brought the whole then world to the brink of starvation (42:46-57)!

 

[Joseph – as we know from the revision of history – also oversaw some massive building projects in Egypt, because he (as Imhotep) was also Pharaoh’s “Chief Architect”].

[* To P. J. Wiseman must go the credit for having shown that the Book of Genesis is a series of ancient family histories (Hebrew toledôt), “These are the generations of …”) of the great biblical Patriarchs, from Adam to Jacob. Genesis is rounded off by Joseph’s own long personal history, which, having been written in Egypt, does not conclude with a toledôt phrase. Presumably Moses added the details about Joseph’s death and embalming. An updated version of Wiseman’s thesis can be found in Ancient Records and the Sructure of Genesis (Thomas nelson, NY, 1985)].

Were Joseph’s brothers still complaining about his ‘dreaminess’ when later they themselves were forced to beg food from him in Egypt, to save their lives? Indeed they were not! The severe trial of the famine years was actually the salvation of these brothers. In fact, they had begun to come to their senses even before they had realised that “the man” (the Vizier) who was interviewing them in Egypt was actually Joseph himself: ‘Truly we are being called to account for our brother’, they began to say amongst themselves in Joseph’s hearing (without realising who he was). ‘We saw his misery of soul when he begged our mercy, but we did not listen to him and now this misery has come to us’ (42:21).

Yes, it was that unworldly, ‘impractical’ dreamy Joseph, and not the busy, ‘competent and self-assured brothers, who had managed to save the world from the seven-year famine, using extremely practical measures on a vast scale.

Now, let us listen to part of what St. Thomas himself has to say about the practicality of wisdom (Commentary on the Ethics, lect. 1):

It is the function of the wise man to put things in order, because wisdom is primarily the perfection of reason an it is the characteristic of reason to know order; for although the sensitive faculties know some things absolutely, only the intellect or reason can know the relation one thing bears to another ….

Thus people of wisdom should make fit rulers. Plato certainly thought so when he named ‘The Philosopher Ruler’ as the ideal type of Guardian to steer the ship of state of his utopic Republic (The Republic, Pt. VII, [Penguin Books, 1955]).

Wisdom is eminently practical: “I, Wisdom, dwell with experience, and possess good advice and sound judgment. … Mine are counsel and advice, mine are discernment and strength. Through me rulers govern and are all the judges respected. …. For within her is a spirit intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, active, incisive …”, etc., etc., (Proverbs 8:12, 15-16; Wisdom 7:22). The Wisdom books are replete with testimonies such as these re Wisdom’s competence to govern and rule.

Pope Pius XI’s following description of the practical aspect of Thomistic metaphysics, rising “step by step … [to] the topmost peak of all things”, finds its perfect material icon in the graded Step Pyramid of Saqqara, built by Imhotep himself from the ground upwards, as if reaching to heaven (op. cit., last emphasis added):

‘ … the order of voluntary acts is for the consideration of moral philosophy which is divided into three sections: the first considers the activities of the individual man in relation to their end and is called monastics; the second considers the activities of the family group or community and is called economics; the third considers the activities of the State and is called politics’ (In Ethic., lect. 1). St. Thomas dealt thoroughly with all these several divisions of philosophy, each according to its appropriate method, and, beginning with things remote, nearest to us, rose step by step to things more remote, until he stood in the end ‘on the topmost peak of all things … in supremo rerum omnium vertice’ (Contra Gent., ii, 56; iv, 1).

The true metaphysician understands the proper order of things, as symbolised by the gradient staircase with its pinnacle in heaven. St. Thomas had not much interest in material buildings, but he was certainly a wise architect of knowledge, which – according to Maritain – is supremely “architectonic” (op. cit., p. 19):

St. Thomas achieved a great philosophical work, he had an extraordinary metaphysical genius. But he is not simply, or primarily, a philosopher, he is essentially a theologian. It is as a theologian, from the summit of knowledge which is architectonic par excellence, that he definitively established the order of Christian economy.

But the metaphysician also shows that the contemplative life is superior to the active life (cf. Luke 10:42), and that it constitutes, when it overflows into an apostolate, the state of life which is purely and simply the most perfect (ibid., p. 76): “ … the contemplation of the saints is worth more than the speculation of the philosophers; … the loftiest intellectuality, far from being diminished, is corroborated and carried to the summit of the spirit by the humility of the knowledge of the Cross” (cf. e.g. Colossians 2:8).

 

....