Certainly I agree—the Egyptian myth seems to be purpose-built to express a certain idea, while it seems to me that the Greek is a mish-mash of influences both from Egypt directly and from Egypt by way of something like six or seven intermediaries (the most important of which was, yes, Assyria), each of which developed things in their own directions. Given the Greek propensity for syncretism, this causes all of them to be squished on top of each other in various weird ways. I confess it makes it difficult to consider the Greek myths as a coherent whole, though, which is why I find Thomas Taylor's explanation of the mysteries a bit of a mess—the myths themselves were a bit of a mess, too. (And that's not to denigrate Taylor, he did far more with far less than I!)
As for the Pythagorean opinion of Egypt being high, this wasn't universal! Certainly Pythagoras, Plato, Apuleius, Porphyry, and Iamblichus thought so; but on the other hand, Sallustius and Julian were quite hostile to Egypt (cf. Nock's commentary on Sallustius, p. xlvii) and regarded the Egyptians as backwards and superstitious barbarians (with, it must be begrudgingly admitted, tremendous engineering skill).
As for the Tetractys and Tree of Life, I'm afraid I don't know. I suspect (based on other lines of transmission I've seen) they were independent developments of some original Egyptian model (by the Greeks and Assyrians, respectively), which were later reintegrated (probably in Alexandria, which was a melting pot of Neopythagorean, Hermetic, and Jewish spiritualities), but that's really just where I'd start looking—I'd need to do a lot of study and meditation to even come close to forming something that might charitably be called an opinion. JMG has recommended a book on the sources of the Tree of Life which would probably be a good place to start, if you're interested in digging into that?
no subject
Certainly I agree—the Egyptian myth seems to be purpose-built to express a certain idea, while it seems to me that the Greek is a mish-mash of influences both from Egypt directly and from Egypt by way of something like six or seven intermediaries (the most important of which was, yes, Assyria), each of which developed things in their own directions. Given the Greek propensity for syncretism, this causes all of them to be squished on top of each other in various weird ways. I confess it makes it difficult to consider the Greek myths as a coherent whole, though, which is why I find Thomas Taylor's explanation of the mysteries a bit of a mess—the myths themselves were a bit of a mess, too. (And that's not to denigrate Taylor, he did far more with far less than I!)
As for the Pythagorean opinion of Egypt being high, this wasn't universal! Certainly Pythagoras, Plato, Apuleius, Porphyry, and Iamblichus thought so; but on the other hand, Sallustius and Julian were quite hostile to Egypt (cf. Nock's commentary on Sallustius, p. xlvii) and regarded the Egyptians as backwards and superstitious barbarians (with, it must be begrudgingly admitted, tremendous engineering skill).
As for the Tetractys and Tree of Life, I'm afraid I don't know. I suspect (based on other lines of transmission I've seen) they were independent developments of some original Egyptian model (by the Greeks and Assyrians, respectively), which were later reintegrated (probably in Alexandria, which was a melting pot of Neopythagorean, Hermetic, and Jewish spiritualities), but that's really just where I'd start looking—I'd need to do a lot of study and meditation to even come close to forming something that might charitably be called an opinion. JMG has recommended a book on the sources of the Tree of Life which would probably be a good place to start, if you're interested in digging into that?