*

+
/ Subject >  Re: Was Akhenaton a Priest or a Prophet? - 4 /
/ Forum > Guardian's Egypt's Ancient Egypt Bulletin Board /
/ Topic > Mythology and Religion / 22Feb2002 / copyto abp /
.
> On 14Feb Beth wrote: [snip] Again, I apologize. I thought
> Textman's question (copied from above) was: 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?
> This is what I (unsuccessfully) tried to answer.
.
 textman sayeth: Hi, Beth. Apparently, there is no easy answer to
that question. My impression is that Egyptologists don't consider
the 'priest or prophet' question to be relevant enough to merit
serious investigation. For example, I'm still reading through my
first book on Akhenaton, and the author routinely (and far too
casually IMO) refers to him as Aten's prophet. I find this rather
puzzling in some ways, since the author does not really seem
to grasp just how new and unprecedented this prophet-thing
actually was. Anachronism is a serious danger if we do not
appreciate the fact that Akhenaton was not just a prophet, but
history's *first* prophet.
.
 Everybody sees the new art styles, the new open-temples, the
new monotheism, and even things like the novel (and some say
offensive) intimacy and natural tone of the images of the royal
family. But most of these things are the direct result of a prior
cause, a prior invisible creation that allowed for the development
of all these tangible and visible effects. Let me put it to you
plainly: if the black pharaoh had not transformed himself into a
new thing, the prophet-king, there would have been no "religious
reformation", no new art, no new temples and rituals, no
humanizing of the divine-king, etc etc. Accordingly, we cannot
be so mindlessly casual about the king's self-identity, because
everything that happened around him hinges on this new idea of
the pharaoh as something more than a mere king, and yet less
than a god.
.
> I was under the impression that speculation about
> Akhenaten's career prior to taking the throne was
> just that, speculation. [snip]
.
  A great deal about what is said and written about Akh-en-Aton
is speculation (or worse). But in the absence of copious evidence,
we have little choice but to fall back on speculation. This is not
necessarily evil in itself, provided that the evidence supports (at
least in part) the theories or possibilities offered. In a situation
like this, everything depends on a careful and sensible
interpretation of the evidence, and a speculation that is firmly
grounded in historical realities. Anyway, I was not directly
concerned with Amenophis IV's pre-throne career, because he
obviously became a prophet *after* becoming king (ie. only the
throne could provide that possibility). In a way, it was easier to
grow into a king than into a prophet, because while the former
role was well-known and well-defined, the latter was not.
.
> At any rate, my overall opinion (not that it matters!)
> is that when it comes to Akhenaten, I tend to be in
> the middle ground.
.
 Does this mean that you agree most of the time with the
majority (ie. the mythical so-called consensus)?
.
> One thing is for sure, there are more opinions on Amarna
> than probably any other time in AE history! -- Beth
.
  Of course everyone knows that AE mania began early last
century with the discovery of Tut's tomb and all its intact
goodies. But more recently, I think that things like the two
Mummy fliks have given it a little boost:
im-ho-tep ... im-ho-TEP ... im-HO-TEP ... IM-HO-TEP!
... Hahahaha; ya gotta love crap like that.  
.
 Anyway, once interest in AE develops even slightly, it is soon
apparent that Tut's step-dad, the previous king, is the more
interesting and controversial character by far. So perhaps Akh-
en-Aton is finally coming into his own? A recent browse through
amazon.com showed me a few dozen books relating to
Akhenaten; and some of these are very very yummy-looking
indeed! And this is mot even counting the trashy "historical
novels". ... Hmmmm, what does a cyber-prophet want for
Christmas? Very expensive books on AE, maybe? Welllll . . .
x

+
> On 15Feb Beth wrote: Hi Textman, I'm not sure what it is
> you are trying to establish about Akhenaten,
.
 textman say: Yo, me neither :)  That's why I much prefer to
investigate, cogitate, calculate, demonstrate, and regurgitate
... In that order!
.
> but I do have a few things to add. You said: "This is because
> the evidence shows him performing priestly functions at
> worship services?" This is not unusual. All pharaohs made
> offerings to the gods. Akhenaten was different in that he
> offered to the Aten alone. His priestly role wasn't unusual,
> his exclusion of all other gods was.
.
  But Beth, how can you say that his "priestly role wasn't
unusual"? How many priests, high-priests, or even pharaoh-
priests have created a new religion, a new theology, a new
attitude toward god, a new relationship with nature and the
world, etc? How many have composed hymns and built entire
cities to their god? So while the rituals themselves are not
*overtly* unusual, the meaning and value that they had for
the participants surely was.
.
>> tx previously wrote: Thus the normal definition (Pharaoh ->
>> son of A3&Tiye -> son of Aton) reduces Akhenaton's pprophetic
>> 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.
.
> I'm not sure what you mean by Akhenaten's prophetic nature?
.
  Well, of course we can only speak sensibly of his "prophetic
nature" IF we are clear on what qualities and characteristics
make a man a prophet (as opposed to 4X a priest or king).
Examine the list below and tell me whether or not you think
Akhenaten falls within the definition of prophet as I have set
it forth:
.
1) a prophet seeks and promotes the truth
2) a prophet denies and resists error
3) a prophet acts with power and conviction
4) a prophet is of use and value to God
5) a prophet praises and worships God
6) a prophet teaches the people, and leads them in prayer
7) a prophet is a tradition-breaker and a tradition-maker
8) a prophet is a writer and/or an original thinker
.
> He made it clear that only he knew the wishes of the Aten,
> and while I have my own ideas of why he did this, it is
> the reason many give him the label prophet.
.
 For me, it is only *one* reason; albeit a darn good one: #4
.
> And we must see him through the eyes of the archaeologists
> and scientists because without them, we wouldn't know of
> him at all.
.
 Why can't I just send them a collective thank-you card? Why
am I obliged to honor them in perpetuity by thinking as they
do for all eternity? ... No, Beth, that won't do AT ALL!
.
> Since we can't go back in time and interview him, all the
> data we have on him has been painstakingly collected by
> the very ones you heap contempt upon.
.
  Not at all. I fully appreciate the efforts of the specialists in
finding, gathering, and presenting the evidence. I just don't
think that this necessarily qualifies them to make "objective"
and "dispassionate" historical judgments about unique people
and brilliant individuals enmeshed in complex events and subtle
ongoing historical processes. At least not with much accuracy. I
think that the current lack of consensus about Akhenaton among
Egyptologists pretty much demonstrates the validity of my
claims in this regard. After all, Beth, history is more of an art-
form than a science, and (as everybody knows) most scientists
make extremely lousy artists! See 4X the historical novel 'Drinker
of Blood' written by Lynda Robinson, a doctor of anthropology and
archaeology (ie. someone who ought to know better). Actually,
this book (a story about Nefertiti) is quite a good read (if you
ignore all the silly historical errors), but it should be properly
classified as a "NON-historical fantasy of no historical value
whatsoever"!
.
> As for "seeing the world through his eyes", I'm not sure
> that is possible. We know a lot about the Amarna era, but
> do we know enough to see things as he did? I don't think so.
.
 Maybe not, but could it hurt to try?
.
>> Yes, but God speaks to people through prophets, not
>> through priests, high-priests, bishops, super-bishops,
>> or even super-high-priests.
.
> I think this is why Akhenaten stated that only he knew the
> wishes of the Aten. It gave him more control. But I'm still
> not sure where you are going with this. First and foremost,
> he was Pharaoh. Because without the power of Kingship, his
> reforms wouldn't have been enacted in the first place. I
> would also like to add that I agree with Ritva, the meaning
> we give the word "prophet" may differ from the meaning the
> AE gave it. -- Beth
.
  Of course the meaning and role of the prophet changed over the
centuries as the understanding of 'prophecy' grew and developed
out of the rich experiences (and writings) of the various prophets
from many lands. Accordingly, we should expect the earliest
prophets to be somewhat different from the latter ones. In
Akhenaton's day there were priests, magicians, and wise men,
but no prophets as such. And no word for 'prophet' either (which
is derived from the Greek). So Akhenaton could not really think
of himself as a prophet, or call himself that; but if he behaves in
many ways like unto a prophet, then perhaps it's only because
that's what he was. And if he was the earliest prophet known to
history, then surely this minor detail was not so minor to the
dark king himself.
.
  You say that "First and foremost, he was Pharaoh", and I tend
to agree; but it may be that Akhenaton understood the meaning
and purpose of the pharaoh's role in a way that is significantly
different from the scholars and specialists of the present post-
modern age. It may be that he redefined the idea of pharaoh in
prophetic terms and in prophetic categories, and this explains
why he did what he did. Can you honestly say that the bulk of
the evidence clearly rules out this possibility altogether?
.
- one who digs deeper beneath the surface - textman ;>
.
P.S. Up next & Coming Soon --> The Ever-Charming Ritva!
X

+
/ Subject >  Re: Was Akhenaton a Priest or a Prophet? - 5 /
/ Forum > Guardian's Egypt's Ancient Egypt Bulletin Board /
/ Topic > Mythology and Religion / 25Feb2002 / copyto abp /
.
> On 16Feb Ritva wrote: textman hello again. OK, Akhenaten as
> prophet. Without going into semantics about what is meant by
> "prophet" now and what kind of a meaning the AEs did give to
> it (if any!),
.
  textman replies: Hi Ritva. As you say: "if any". This is the key
question here. Just how exactly does the history of the earliest
prophets intersect with the larger history of AE? According to
my investigations it would seem that this question is of no
importance whatsoever, since no one even bothers to mention
it, let alone actually address it!
.
> implying that god spoke through Akhenaten is a dead end issue.
.
  Right ... By "dead end issue" I take it you mean that it's a
*theological* problem or question; which means (at once) that
it's of no interest or concern to *real* egyptologists and historians
(who are - almost by definition really - materialists in both
perception and methodology). Of course, I will not make a big
rant about the many and various shortcomings and obvious errors
of such a simplistic, unrealistic, and ultimately self-defeating
*Method of Operation* ... BUT I will point out that it *is* a valid
question, and that once again I must shackle my own procedures
and perceptions in order to operate within the narrow and
restrictive boundaries arbitrarily imposed upon me by the so-
called "rules of acceptable scientific dialogue". Sheesh!
.
> Because we have no way of knowing if god did or not!
.
  Yes, that is correct. Materialists and scientists and so-called
rationalists have "no way of knowing". I quite agree with this
statement. What I don't agree with is the further implication that
therefore no one else can know either. This is incorrect. This is
because the reason they don't know is directly related to their
most basic assumptions and methods (which, in a sense, lobs
reality in half BEFORE the first step is even taken). However,
those historians and/or philosophers who are not so bound and
gagged and buried beneath a TON of BS (if you don't mind my
saying so) may have another valid approach to the problem (ie.
something beyond a simplistic denial and childish refusal to face
the thing head on).
.
> There's no archaeological evidence that could ever prove
> such a case (how could there be!).
.
  Can't be! It's impossible! :)
.
> Akhenaten himself states that god speaks through him and
> therefore any evidence of the case is due to him saying so!
.
  Right. So then it would appear that everything depends on
whether or not he was an honest man who sincerely believed
in his new god (and the faith born thereof), and that he meant
exactly what he said. Now *any* judgment of the man's basic
character 35 centuries down the road is necessarily riddled with
problems and difficulties of many kinds. Was the man a sincere
believer? Or was he merely a crafty and machiavellian charlatan?
Was he brain-damaged at birth? Or was he just standing out in
the sun too long? Or perhaps his hatred of his father explains
everything? etc etc ... So many questions that the evidence is
incapable of answering all on its own. But everyone wants a
simple and easy solution to the mystery of Akhenaten! They'll
fill in the blanks on their own authority if they have to (and think
nothing of it), and all at once one's personal opinion becomes
a "fact" to be defended against any and all comers. Isn't this
exactly the situation that the scholars find themselves in right
now? I seriously doubt that they can find a way out of the
Amarna Tar Pits on their own resources!
.
> (As a reference you can surf 5 min in the net and you'll
> stumbe on 576 self-declared-cyber-prophets!)
.
 You have a list? Where, where?
.
> How can we be sure Akhenaten didn't say so to be "the
> beautiful one" in his subjects eyes? Or even in his own?
> How can we be sure he just simply didn't want to exceed his
> own father who had been deified and was worshipped by his
> subjects? Just wondering, Ritva. [snip]
.
  I think maybe Amenophis IV was *very* aware that his father
was much impressed by his own glorious divinity ... by his
*supposed* glorious divinity! I think the future black pharaoh
knew very well that his father was NOT a god, and I also think
that he was probably rather angry about it; and even resented
the blindness, stupidity, and vanity that would cause any mere
man to fancy himself a god. Such a deep anger and resentment,
based on a lifetime of experience, could easily motivate the
Magnificent One's son to a serious re-examination of Egypt's
entire religious system. And everywhere he looked he found
flaws and faults. What could he do about it? What could anyone
do about it? At one time the entire future history of the planet
was balanced on a razor's edge: What would the second royal
son do about it?
x

+
> On 20Feb Ritva wrote: [snip] and textman, I earnestly
> appreciate your literary skill and philosophical musings
.
 textman say: Thx, Ritva! Why I do believe that's the nicest
thing I've heard in a long while. In my line of work the
ratio of insults to compliments is somewhere on the order
of a thousand to one. 
.
> but
.
 Why does there always have to be a 'but'? 
.
> has it ever occurred to you that Akhenaten was, after
> all, just a human being?
.
 Of course he was just a human being. I'm certainly not
disputing that, or suggesting anything otherwise.
.
> Here's what. Akh wasn't supposed to be king in the first
> place, it was only the accidental (?) death of crownprince
> Thothmose that gave him the opportunity to have a go at
> the powerhandle.
.
 So then fate, luck, chance, (murder?), synchronicity, providence,
or whatever you want to call it, intervened to reshuffle the deck
and 'accidentally' change the course of history. These sorts of
things happen quite a bit throughout history it seems. 'copious
historical accidents' eh? I'm sure there's a lesson in there some-
where ... ???
.
> He had been brought up in the environment full
> of Atenist influences
.
 Sure he was. And he was a man of his times just like
everybody else before or since.
.
> since AIII seemed to name many of his works after Aten
> (Malqata, the Lake in Fayum, the Boat etc.) Also, both
> his father and mother had enjoyed the popularity of
> the subjects and even been deified!
.
 You mean while they were still alive and reigning? That
would be part of a recent (ie. New Kingdom) trend, yes?
.
> Could it be (archaeopsychology, here I come!) that he just
> wanted to be one step better than his own father?
.
 He was better; and he doubtless knew it.
.
> You have seen that in AE each new king was the most, the
> best, the bravest... You know that there are theories that
> Akh's worship of the Aten means worship of his own father,
.
 Ha!
.
> well, no, I don't think so either! But the contrary seems
> probable (to me, heheh) considering the fact that even after
> the death of AIII the foreign kings and chieftains write to
> ... his mother and not him! In a word, he had to take
> drastic steps to be the best so far.
.
 So his entire motivation was petty, childish, and self-centered?
I don't know, Ritva. I really don't see how a *child* could have
acted in such a novel and unprecedented way. Children tend to
react in predictable and thoughtless ways, not act with originality
and insight. The latter are the actions of mature individuals. I
think your assessment is maybe missing a significant piece of
the puzzle.
.
> I think that declaring a new god that only speaks to him
> in person was the least he could do!
.
 You mean that it was an idea just lying around waiting to
be picked up and used? ... I doubt it was that easy.
.
> Egoistic as he was, even that got out of hand! Hmmm?
.
 Egoism is an occupational hazard for any pharaoh, I guess.
.
> As a matter of fact I think almost the same applies to ...
> Ramesses I, but that's another story.
.
 Rameses II was Egypt's prime ego-king; according
to all the evidence (artifacts and texts). :)
.
> However, there must have been some royal couples in the
> AE sighing: "Geez, this is what you get when you let the
> somebody else raise your own children!"... heheh! -- Ritva
.
 No one could have predicted what Amenophis IV would do!
x

+
> On 20Feb Ritva wrote: textman, heheh, I just found something
> funny/interesting/coincidental in my old boxes! D. Redford,
> having studied the Talatat,
.
 the wut?
.
> gave a lecture in Los Angeles 1998 and stated that Akhenaten
> thought that the ancient gods "had ceased to speak".
> Ironically enough, the same note is found again in
> Tutankhamun's restoration Stela, whereas he takes all
> measures possible to make the gods speak again. A question
> arises? Who was deaf, Akhenaten or the rest of the Ancient
> Egypt?  -- [:)] Ritva
.
 The People of the Black Land were deaf to their own Messiah, deaf
to the truth of things, deaf to the shallowness of their traditional
religion, deaf to the world beyond Egypt, and even deaf to the
future. Akhenaton tried to change all that, and give Egypt a future.
They didn't want it, and so they sealed their fate. Destruction was
merely a matter of time.
.
- one who mourns not the death of AE - textman ;>
x