*

+
        Was Akhenaton a Priest or a Prophet?
           [Or: On Many Misunderstandings & Diversions]
.
/ Forum > Guardian's Egypt's Ancient Egypt Bulletin Board /
/ Topic > Mythology and Religion / 13Feb2002 /
.
 "And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together
before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels;
must we fetch you water out of this rock?" -- Num.20:10
.
> On 10Feb J.D. Degreef wrote: [snipsome] This is a fascinating
> question, but unfortunately people with little experience in
> Egyptology and with hidden agendas have spoiled the field for
> normal research. -- JD
.
 textman replies: You mean it's all my fault?! ... I'm so sorry!
.
   
x

+
> On 11Feb quickmind wrote: [snipsome]  Everyone is not
> Afrocentric, even if they seem to hold some beliefs in
> common with "Afrocentrists". [snip]
.
  textman replies: Quite right, quickmind. I myself have never
even heard about Afrocentrism until it was mentioned earlier.
.
> All of these arguments and scientific acrobatics seem to
> defy logic and gravity in order to maintain the "accepted"
> view. And to many, these arguments seem to contradict what
> is obvious when they look at the statues, bas reliefs and
> other artifacts that are left. Given the history of the
> academic community in this respect, they are more than
> right to be suspicious. Since this is an open board of free
> thinkers, I therefore expect more to pose counter arguments.
.
  Well said. And I quite agree. I initially approached this BB in the
hopes that my queries might receive considered answers, or
failing that, that my ideas would be subjected to rational
criticisms. Well, I recently came into possession of 'Akhenaten
and the Religion of Light' by Erik Hornung, and this small paper-
back has already answered some of my questions regarding the
Aton temple at Karnak. So it seems that Amenophis IV began
his reign by building, not destroying, and by working within the
religious system, rather than independently of it. This is a good
scholarly book by an expert who obviously knows his stuff, but I
haven't seen much there yet that addresses my chief concerns
directly. Now I don't expect this BB to fill in *all* the gaps in
my ongoing research, but I would like to generate some fruitful
dialogue, if that's at all possible.
x

+
> On 11Feb Ritva wrote: Hi all. OK, everybody here is tired of
> these eternal discussions on black/white/orange/blue issues,
> but scroll upwards and see just at what point this topic
> turned into one of those!
.
 textman replies: Hi, Ritva. Good point. :)
.
> Apart from textman calling Akhenaten "the black/dark pharaoh"
> (and who knows, maybe it's due to his bust of A. being made
> of obsidian, huh?)
.
 I don't think so. Not all the evidence can reside in any
one mere artifact.
.
> from time to time, his postings were NOT centered
> on that subject.
.
 Quite right. My concerns lie in other directions.
.
> I respect everybody on this board and am sad to see how easily
> somebody thinking differently can bring this whole "community"
> in such an uproar. In this case, one word was enough!
> So really, "Where's the Beef?" -- Ritva
.
  It appears that this is merely a ploy to divert attention away
from my claim that Akhenaton was the first prophet known to
history. Since this idea is rejected outright, it seems easier to
revert to tired and boring subjects than to explain why I'm so
very very wrong about this. I was hoping that someone would
at least explain why the prevailing view (that he was a high
priest?) is so much better. Needless to say, no one has
mentioned word one about these things. Perhaps this is because
this is the wrong thread or sub-topic in which to pursue this line
of inquiry? Yes, it must be so, therefore I have taken the liberty
of re-directing this posting out of 'Tombs and Temples - The
Complete TEMPLES OF ANCIENT EGYPT' and into a more
appropriate spot.
x

+
> On 11Feb Rick wrote: [snipsome] ... I blasted them, there was
> nothing new, original or even controversial. It was a lot
> "textman" - "Yo doods I'm looking at a pix. of Tut no doubt
> he was a BLACK man." and on and on and on and on it went ...
.
 textman replies: Well Rick, I sympathize with your exasperation,
but it seems that you have prematurely mistaken me for some-
thing I'm not. Seeing a superficial resemblance to these Afro-
centrists of yours you automatically dismissed me and my
legitimate queries, and in doing so you did not allow me any
possibility of demonstrating something "new, original or even
controversial". If, however, you just give me a chance, I just
*might* surprise you.
.
> So when James, George, J.D. and I express our exasperation
> with this debate please believe me we know where this
> arguement is going: NOWHERE.
.
   Another good reason for opting out of the Tombs and
Temples topic area.
.
> So in answer to the most famous rhetorical in history
> "Where's the beef?" the answer is "There isn't any."
.
 That's exactly what I *DON'T* want to hear!
x

+
> On 11Feb quickmind wrote: textman, Don't let the opinions on
> this BB disuay your interest in Egypt or Egyptology.
.
 textman replies: Not to worry, quickmind, there is no chance
of that. Once I make up my mind to investigate something, not
even wild horses could tear me away.
.
> Many of the people here are challenging and thoughtful,
> although many times they don't agree. With that in mind, it
> is important to remember etiquitte and stick to the topic at
> hand. Whether or not someone agrees with you on every issue
> is not important, the learning process is.
.
 I agree entirely. It's those that are unwilling to learn
that have a serious problem.
.
> No one agrees with everyone 100% of the time.
.
 No, but I sometimes think that this one DISagrees with
everyone 100% of the time! :D
.
> Respect other's opinions as you would have them respect yours.
.
 The Golden Rule of scholarly discussions?
.
> It is okay to agree to disagree.
.
  I quite agree. And I also agree that the most important thing to
agree upon is *precisely* what the topic at hand is. Therefore let
me re-focus this inquiry toward the questions that concern me:
Am I right in assuming that Akhenaton is generally regarded by
Egyptologists as a high priest? What, if any, reasoning lies behind
this common assumption? What, if any, evidence is there to
support this attribution of high priestly status? What, if any,
arguments are used to reject alternative explanations? In other
words, I want you (ie. anyone) to tell me who and what Aton's
beloved son thought himself to be. If you say 'a high priest',
then I expect you to tell me *WHY* please!
.
         - one who disputes the categories - texttman ;>
x

+
/ Subject >  Re: Was Akhenaton a Priest or a Prophet? - 1 /
/ Forum > Guardian's Egypt's Ancient Egypt Bulletin Board /
/ Topic > Mythology and Religion / 15Feb2002 /
.
 Hi Guardians, thx for the great response! I'm looking over
all the posts very carefully (as time permits); but JMV's
short and pungent verses are particularly interesting,
so I'd like to start there:
.
> On 13Feb James M. Vance wrote: No, you are not correct when
> you say that Egyptologists think of Akhenaton as a high priest.
.
   textman say: Hi, James. This is good to know. I guess I just
jumped to the wrong conclusion when you initially said that "the
reliefs on the walls and columns were, basically, hymns of praise
to Aten, Akhenaten as his "son" and chief priest, Nefertiti and
the royal family". So then would it be fair to say that some few
scholars might call him a priest, and some few other scholars
might call him a prophet, while many would not bother to call
him by either of these titles (ie. they consider the question
marginal or incidental or irrelevant)? ... I'm just trying to form
some impression of the general consensus regarding this
question. You still think of Akh-en-Aton as 'chief priest', right?
This is because the evidence shows him performing priestly
functions at worship services? I assume this is why you said
that in the first place ... ???
.
> First and formost, he is considered to be a pharaoh,
> then the second son of AIII and his chief wife, Tiye,
> then the son of Aton
.
 All of these things are part of who Akhenaton was as a unique
individual.  But it may be that this artificial hierarchy of roles
is somewhat misleading and even erroneous. For example, it
suggests that even if he can be validly called a prophet, it
remains an almost incidental thing. But was it incidental to the
king himself? The dark pharaoh's almost exclusive focus on his
religious reform suggests that he thought of himself first and
foremost according to his relationship with the Aton (which is
characterized by useful service).
.
 In one sense, then, his sonship supercedes even his status as
king. Or perhaps it would be more correct to say that Akhenaton
*redefines* the nature and role of pharaoh such that he was not
so much a 'pharaoh' as a 'prophet-pharaoh' (with the latter term
being secondary). Thus the normal definition (Pharaoh -> son of
A3&Tiye -> son of Aton) reduces Akhenaton's prophetic nature
and role to marginal insignificance, and by doing so presents us
with a false and distorted image of the man himself. Surely if we
want to understand who and what Akhenaton was, we must first
learn to see the world through *his* eyes, rather than through the
eyes of scientists who are by training incapable of appreciating
the real meaning and value of the king's unique personality and
contribution.
.
> -- in that regard, he was the ultimate high priest!
.
   So then you understand his 'sonship' in terms of priestly
categories? 'Son of Aton' or 'thy beloved son' being basically a
definition of his status, role, and function as a kind of super high-
priest? I'm not convinced that this is an adequate interpretation
of the evidence, James; nor does it really address the question
of the pharaoh's own self-understanding.
.
> God spoke to people through him.
.
 Yes, but God speaks to people through prophets, not through
priests, high-priests, bishops, super-bishops, or even super-high-
priests. Although it is true that in Akhenaton can be found traits
and qualities of both priest and prophet, there is nevertheless a
significant distinction between these two types of professional
religious. The priest can be a servant of God, but a son of God
generally indicates something more, and is more appropriate to
the prophets (who serve in ways not limited by narrow priestly
categories). Akhenaton founded a new religion, yes. That in itself
pushes him well out of the range of priestly service and identity.
.
              - one in pursuit of an idea - textman ;>>
x