The First Messiah.
The First Messiah.
/ Subject > Re: Was Akhenaton a Priest or a Prophet? - 2 /
/ Forum > Guardian's Egypt's Ancient Egypt Bulletin Board /
/ Topic > Mythology and Religion / 18Feb2002 / copyto abp /
.
>> On 13Feb Ronlyons wrote: I'm amateur at this, but I would
>> say the evidence would be that as a prophet, Ankhenaton
>> would have no claim to the throne.
.
textman replies: Hi, Ronlyons. Wouldn't his claim be primarily
dependant on his being a son of the reigning king and queen?
That way his becoming a prophet would come after receiving
the two crowns, and (in a sense) requires the throne for the
very opportunity to realize possibilities that were previously
only spoken in whispers under cover of darkness by the
educated nobles and priests.
.
>> With all of egypt polytheistic, and Ankhenaton at least
>> having monotheistic tendencies, he wouldn't be embraced
>> by anyone... especially the priests already in power.
.
I tend to agree. There's no easy way of breaking old traditions,
techniques, and paradigms. And certainly no easy way of
installing new ones! Yet he, against all logic and reason, made
the attempt that only a pharaoh was in any position to reach for.
.
>> However, if Ankhenaton
.
btw: Why do you spell his name like that, rather than
the more common 'Akhenaten' or 'Akhenaton'?
.
>> was a High Priest, then he would have a shot at
>> claiming the throne (which he did).
.
The problem here is that the king's priestly duties were minimal
by the fourteenth century, I think. That's why the new pharaoh's
interest in things religious was deemed unusual. Most little
pharaoh's-in-training are looking to be great and mighty warriors
smiting the noggins of foreign kings and such-like sport.
.
>> And would then be free to do whatever he wanted to
>> the religion (which he did).
.
Right. He had to be a pharaoh in order to be an effective prophet.
.
>> Please excuse my ignorance on this, though...
.
Only if you'll excuse mine :)
x
+
> On 13Feb Ritva wrote: Textman, I have to present the same
> excuses as Ronlyons to begin with. Akhenaten is probably
> considered having been a high priest since ALL pharaohs
> were high priests of the high god of their time.
.
Yeah sure. But they became the king/high-priest combination
only because of their divine nature as manifestations (or sons)
of some hotshot deity. Is this right? A man becomes a king
and high-priest at a specific point in time (associated with
festivals and ceremonies and various rituals), but he doesn't
really *become* divine. ... Or does he?
.
> This duty was however transferred to the high priests
> of the temples due to kings other occupations,
.
Occupations, pre-occupations, interests, concerns, worries,
passions, whims, or whatever. Only the pharaoh was free and
able to set Egypt on ANY course. Yes, the fate and destiny of
Egypt seems to rest squarely in the hands of the divine-king,
and no one else. And yet the case of Akhenaton shows that this
is not true. It shows that the collective will of the people
is more than a match for any mere pharaoh.
.
> such as diplomatics, economy and building projects.
> Akhenaten didn't seem to take any interest in this
> kind of action. Quite the contrary, most of the evidence
> we have shows him in the position of a high priest and
> not a customary pharaoh.
.
Right. So the very first thing we learn about Akh-en-Aton is that
he is NOT like any other pharaoh before or after him. This primary
fact should serve as a warning and a reminder not to judge him or
his actions according to concepts and categories appropriate to
MOST pharaoh's or to most civilizations and cultures. Thus the
evidence shows the black king in the worship and/or service of
the Aton. This does not necessarily mean that he thought of him-
self in priestly terms; indeed, the Hymn to Aton clearly suggests
otherwise. That the evidence "shows him in the position of a high
priest" is *already* an interpretation of the raw artifacts, and
ought not to be treated as an established fact, EVEN THOUGH the
king is also the chief priest of Egypt (ie. by law and tradition
owing to his supposed divine nature). We must proceed in this
manner because the king was not just pushing a religious reform
or revolution, he was challenging the very heart of the People of
the Black Land by redefining the role of Egypt's king, and the
meaning of the pharaoh as a leader and as a man.
.
> As a matter of fact, he even went further than that. He
> declared that Aten could only talk to people through him.
.
Right. That's why he gave himself the name of Akh-en-Aton,
which means something like 'Useful Servant of the Aton' ... Which
would be a very odd name indeed if it was meant to be some kind
of definition of his role and status as the Aton's high priest.
But if the name is meant as a definition for something new,
something for which there was as yet no word, then, logically,
we should not mistake him for any kind of priest.
.
> In a way, I imagine that this could be taken as Akhenaten
> being a prophet, if not by others, then at least by himself.
.
Well, that IS the chief thing after all, Ritva! If we cannot
understand even his name aright, then what hope do we have of
understanding the man behind the stony gaze and what he was
trying to accomplish? Historians need to know these things, Uno!
.
> Although I'm not sure that the word prophet as we
> understand it was included in the AE way of thinking.
.
It most likely was not (at least not much in his day). Hence
my claim that the black pharaoh was the FIRST prophet. He was
doing something, being something, that the world had never seen
before. This is why I insist that the traditional categories
used are necessarily inadequate when used to pigeonhole Akhenaton.
.
> As to ruining the empire, I'm sorry to say, but it rather
> seems that he did. We have records of at least Tutankhamun's,
> Horemheb's and Seti I's reign telling of enormous re-
> organizing efforts concerning the economic and the religious
> (including building projects) fields.
.
If Akhenaton motivated his successors to improve Egypt's
various systems and sub-systems, then this is surely something
to his credit. However, that aside, I don't really suppose that
Rameses II's colossal statues and tombs served Egypt as much
as his own vanity. Either way he was just perpetuating the
ancient system that was fast hurling Egypt toward the dark
and deadly embrace of cultural oblivion.
.
. . . Let me put it another way:
.
Prior to the New Kingdom period, Egypt could enjoy the benefits
of empire without worrying about the religious and philosophical
implications of the larger world beyond Egypt's vast horizons.
Most of the people of the Black Land could continue living the
illusion that Egypt is the center of all things, and that whatever
lay beyond her reach was either barbaric or insignificant. But
when the rising tide of the age of rival empires finally engulfed
the ever inward looking Egypt, it came to the people as a rather
rude awakening indeed. Egypt responded with anger and hatred
to the rule of foreigners during the so-called Hyksos Invasion;
and these strong (albeit negative) feelings powered the
determination to expel the enemy within, and so restore the
timeless glory of eternal Egypt.
.
With that goal in mind, the kings set fourth to enter the larger
arena of combat with the world's titans and giants, and emerge
victorious. In doing so, the pharaohs expanded and re-defined
the nature and function of kinship so as to suit the needs of Egypt
in this brave new world that was suddenly much bigger than the
people really cared for. Thus the new warrior-kings became semi-
divine heroes, who were most proud of the title 'king of kings'.
All for the greater glory of Egypt, of course.
.
But Egypt's 'might makes right' foreign-policy was doomed to
fail because it could not last. Anger and hatred are hard to
sustain when you have already made footstools of rival kings and
princes, and made off with their harems. Moreover, Egypt's
arrogance (drunk on her successes), combined with the vain
illusion that the Cosmos revolves around Egypt, are insufficient
foundations upon which to build a sturdy house strong enough to
withstand the ever-accelerating pace of changes caused by the ever-
increasing rationalization of all systems within the human world.
.
Thus Egypt lost in her bid for world dominance and eternal glory
because she was unwilling to look ahead, to see a different future,
to consider the possibilities that are not (but yet may be). No.
Egypt was quite content with the Past! To her, the future could
only be more of the same. For this blindness, this stubbornness,
this raging rejection of all things new or different or untried,
Egypt paid the ultimate price of cultural death and oblivion under
the fatal impact of the superior ways of the Roman empire.
.
Not surprisingly, Egypt remained consistent to the bitter end,
fighting for a grand delusion, chasing the vanishing wisps of vapor
that was the greatness and glory of a timeless and eternal Egypt.
When Cleopatra saw the final hopes of Egypt crumble under the
relentless assault of the unacceptable truth (that Egypt was NOT
the center of the universe) she pressed the venomous fangs
against her potent breast. And thus ends the story of Ancient
Egypt! A fitting end to the longest-lasting civilization in
history; and a stern warning to all nations drunk on their own
glory and righteousness.
.
Cleopatra died for her country, and for her hopes and dreams,
just as Socrates did centuries earlier. But what a difference
between these two suicides! Cleopatra died because she could
not bear the awful truth that the Past could never be again.
Socrates died for the right to fight for the truth in the hopes
of a better life and a better future. Cleopatra died to escape
the agony of a world without hope, a world without Egypt. Socrates
died in respect of the judgement of a court of law. Cleopatra
died in pointless pain a tragic death that finally reveals the
shallowness and emptiness of the Egyptian soul. Socrates died
the death of a saint, a martyr for the truth, and for freedom of
thought. Cleopatra left nothing of any value behind her. Socrates
inspired his students to reach for the stars. They did; and in
so doing propelled the ancient world onto the short path leading
directly to our very own post-modern global village.
.
But it did not have to be that way at all! Ever since the final
fading of the long night of the neolithic period, Egypt had nursed
a faint and misty hope of a future benevolent King, a Messiah
who would rule in peace and wisdom, with abundant life for all.
Akhenaton was that Messiah for whom Egypt was waiting. He
tried to do the impossible. He tried to change the very soul of
Egypt so that it could survive the turmoil and stress of historical
changes resulting from the ongoing rationalization of the world.
In order to survive the patient pruning of History's razor-sharp
blades, Egypt had to first of all change her heart!
.
And this the People refused to do. They rejected their Messiah
out of the same arrogant righteousness that powered their
collective contempt for all things foreign. In the blindness of
their vanity they did not recognize their Messiah when he came
to them. Instead Egypt chose to make an enemy of her Messiah,
and in Rameses II this Egypt is personified and made manifest.
Akhenaton's Egypt, the way not chosen, followed the hope of life.
Rameses' Egypt was the path desired and chosen, the path that
led nowhere. Accordingly, Egypt lost all claim to divine favor, and
it is most appropriate that the idea of the Messiah left Egypt with
the escape of the Egyptian slaves under the very protests of the
wrathful pharaoh. Egypt's last remaining seed would eventually
bear fruit in a foreign land; Egypt's true glory at last realized
through her very own, and much despised, scum of the earth!
.
- also a son of the scum - textman ;>
.
P.S. BTW, Ritva: I'm fascinated by your recent dialogue with Mr
Vance. I heartily applaud your position and your philosophy;
however, James also has a good point. I guess I must be one of
those 576 self-declared cyber-prophets, because that's what
my name means. :D He's also right when he says that I have a
specific image of the black pharaoh in mind. I even have a part
of my website devoted exclusively to investigating Akh-en-Aton;
and part of the offerings there include copes of my postings here!
.
Anyway, what he is wrong about is his suggestion that I care
not for the facts. It is the facts that formed my impressions
and guided my conclusions in the first place, so obviously I'm
interested in the evidence ... As long as we are clear on the
importance of the distinction between the evidence and its
interpretation.
.
Frankly, I think that the chief occupation of the Egyptologists
is to find, catalogue, collect, and (most importantly) present
the evidence in a coherent manner. Anything beyond that is
pretty much extending their influence beyond the bounds of their
particular and circumscribed fields (and therefore beyond their
legitimate authority). In other words, they should leave the
actual writing of history to historians who are accustomed to
thinking outside of the narrow boxes and cramped methodologies
of the specialized sciences.
.
So whereas I am biased in favor of the prophets, James is biased
against them; and this blatant contradiction is the true source of
his righteous hostility. He thinks that his bias is more rational,
more logical, and (of course) more scientific. I think, rather,
that atheism (ie. as a methodology and/or philosophy of perception)
is simply unfit to address *many* of the issues, problems, and
realities pertaining to the multiverse (which is to say, reality at
large). I especially think that such methods are woefully incapable
of coping with someone like Akhenaton.
x
Goto More Pri-or-Pro
textman
*