“Without stopping to discuss whether Hermes was the “Prince of post-diluvian magic”, as des Mousseaux calls him, or the antediluvian, which is much more likely, one thing is certain: The authenticity, reliability, and usefulness of the Books of Hermes – or rather of what remains of the thirty-six works attributed to the Egyptian magician – are fully recognized by Champollion, junior, and corroborated by Champollion-Figeac, who mentions it.
Now, if by carefully looking over the kabalistical works, which are all derived from that universal storehouse of esoteric knowledge, we find the facsimiles of many so-called miracles wrought by magical art, equally reproduced by the Quiches; and if even in the fragments left of the original Popol-Vuh, there is sufficient evidence that the religious customs of the Mexicans, Peruvians, and other American races are nearly identical with those of the ancient Phoenicians, Babylonians, and Egyptians; and if, moreover, we discover that many of their religious terms have etymologically the same origin, how are we to avoid believing that they are the descendants of those whose forefathers “fled before the brigand, Joshua, the son of Nun?” “Nunez de la Vega says that Nin, or Imos, of the Tzendales, was the Ninus of the Babylonians.”
It is possible that, so far, it may be coincidence; as the identification of one with the other rests but upon a poor argument. “But it is known”, adds de Bourbourg, “that this prince, and according to others, his father, Bel, or Baal, received, like the Nin of the Tzendales the homages of his subjects under the shape of a serpent.” The latter assertion, besides being fantastic, is nowhere corroborated in the Babylonian records.
It is very true that the Phoenicians represented the sun under the image of a dragon; but so did all the other people who symbolized their sun-gods. Belus, the first king of the Assyrian dynasty was, according to Castor, and Eusebius who quotes him, deified, i.e., he was ranked among the gods” after his death” only. Thus, neither himself nor his son, Ninus, or Nin, could have received their subjects under the shape of a serpent, whatever the Tzendales did.
Bel, according to the Christians, is Baal; and Baal is the Devil, since the Bible prophets began so designating every deity of their neighbors; therefore Belus, Ninus, and the Mexican Nin are serpents and devils; and, as the Devil, or father of evil, is one under many forms, therefore, under whatever name the serpent appears, it is the Devil.
Strange logic! Why not say that Ninus the Assyrian, represented as husband and victim of the ambitious Semiramis, was high priest as well as king of his country? That as such he wore on his tiara the sacred emblems of the dragon and the sun? Moreover, as the priest generally assumed the name of his god, Ninus was said to receive his subject as the representative of this serpent-god. The idea is preeminently Catholic and amounts to very little, as all their inventions do.”
H. P. Blavatsky