The question why so many distinct forms of spirituality and intellectual life may be named and understood as “philosophy”, should perhaps be answered by involving the so-called “principle of translatability”, discussed by Jan Assmann in respect to Egyptian and Near Eastern religions. The conviction that God or the gods are universal led to the semantic dimension that makes names translatable. This means that every nation has essentially the same gods. Therefore the basic structure of the spiritual path leading to first principles everywhere must be analogous, though different in style and details. According to Aristotle (De philosoph., fr.8), wisdom (sophia) covers any ingenious invention and conception (all of which ultimately are gifts, sent down by the gods); therefore to do any thing well, skillfully, according to the divine paradigms and models, is to follow the way of “wisdom” which finally leads to the highest metaphysical goals, to the noetic realm where Wisdom itself, the graceful goddess, dwells. No wonder that every nation loves wisdom and has certain “lovers of wisdom”, be they goldsmiths, artists, healers, singers, priests, or magicians. The practice of translating and interpreting foreign divine names is found already established in the Sumerian and Akkadian glossaries dated from the third millennium B.C. In ancient Mesopotamia one can find countless lists of gods in two or three languages. For example, the explanatory list Anu sha Ameli gives not only the Sumerian and Akkadian names of the gods, but also the functional definitions of every deity, i.e. those attributes which serve as the main criteria for equation and translation. In the Kassite period (about 1730-1155 B.C.) such explanatory lists are expanded to include the divine names in Amorite, Hurrite, Elamite and Kassite languages. This theological interpretation, aimed at making explicit the underlying “meaning” of divine names, is based on universal metaphysics (covered by the mythical images, qualities, symbols) and international law. According to Jan Assmann: “The names, iconographies, and rites – in short, the cultures – differ, but the gods are the same. This concept of religion as the common background of cultural diversity and the principle of cultural translatability eventually led to the late Hellenistic mentality for which the names of the gods mattered little in view of the overwhelming natural evidence of their existence”. This kind of comparative hermeneutics is not explicitly developed in the early pharaonic Egypt due to its closed and self-sufficient character, but Egyptian metaphysics are even more overwhelmingly based upon evident reality and can serve as a firm theological ground for such practices as flourished especially in Hellenistic times. In the Coffin Texts of the Middle Kingdom (2040-1650 B.C.) it is unequivocally stated: all names are those of one God (CT 4.10). God is both transcendent and immanent. In his immanent aspect of the creative theophany, God is “million” (or infinity, heh) into which he has transformed himself. Therefore the intelligible solar Deity is hehu whose limits are not known, scarab (kheper) whose body is not known, for he is like the boundless Light (Leiden stela V.70). The One who transforms himself into the totality of manifestations (kheperu), divine forces (sekhemu), all of the gods (neteru) and levels of being, nonetheless remains intact in his transcendence. All gods are comprised in the One, “the One Alone who created what is, the illustrious bau of gods and humans” (Pap. Berlin 3030.8-9).