Moving on from that, I too can see an issue with the age of Aldrasto's posts. As I stated previously, my speciality is Egypt, not Rome, but the same issue arises with Egyptian sources of the same era.  Basically, scholars from this period have great difficulty in perceiving, accommodating, or finding language with which to describe beliefs which are not found in Christianity.  Rather, scholars of the period -consciously or not - tend to describe by analogy with Christianity.  An absolute classic example is the translation of maa kherau as 'victorious''triumphant' or 'vindicated'. The words mean 'a true voice' and literally means that what one says will come about - but the underlying concept bears no relation whatsoever to the Christian concept of being saved from sin, having overcome Satan through faith in Christ. The Kemitic Egyptians had nothing that equates to the Christian belief in the need for salvation. The reason for the choice of words appears to be connected to Matthew 17, where Jesus drives out a demon that his disciples had been unable to exorcise, and tells them that with even a little faith they could command mountains to move about. A man who had passed the test of the judgement hall obtained power in Amentet, such that what he commanded to happen would happen, therefore according to the Christian model, this must be because he had in some way achieved the status of a Christian saint.