*

+
/ Subject >  Re: Was Akhenaton a Priest or a Prophet? - 6 /
/ Forum > Guardian's Egypt's Ancient Egypt Bulletin Board /
/ Topic > Mythology and Religion / 27Feb2002 / copyto abp /
.
> On 22Feb Beth wrote: Hi Textman, Just a note, Akhenaten was
> not the first prophet in history. There are prophets known
> from as far back as the Old Kingdom.
.
  textman replies: Hi, Beth. Are you referring to specific
identifiable individuals? If so, what are their names and dates?
If you are not referring to known individuals, then on what
evidence do you base your knowledge of prophets as far back
as the Old Kingdom?
.
> I would suggest reading up on Ancient Egyptian religion
> and the priesthood.
.
  I'm afraid I don't have much access to the primary textbooks
beyond my own meager resources (including things like tv and
the web). Now this is a serious handicap, no doubt, but even
so I much prefer the raw source texts to any smooth scholarly
presentation. This is why I can appreciate the distinction
between the evidence and its interpretation. Therefore I agree
entirely with what Rick said:
.
>.> On 21Feb Rick wrote: [snip] So in conclusion. Before you
>.> get too bogged down in Amarna, don't believe everything
>.> you read even by the experts. Go to the source material
>.> and read that first.
.
  I would only add: first, last, and always! So my question to you
is what source-texts constitute the foundation of your claim that
Akh-en-Aton was not the first prophet known to history?
.
>> tx previously said: Anyway, I was not directly
>> concerned with Amenophis IV's pre-throne career
.
> Sorry, I thought that is what you were alluding to.
> I misunderstood what you were getting at.
.
   I notice that many people like to jump to all the wrong
conclusions before even giving me the opportunity to *fully*
explain my views, claims, and opinions. Why is that? :(
.
>>> Beth previously wrote: [snip] At any rate, my overall
>>> opinion (not that it matters!)
.
 It matters to me! . . . a bit
.
>>> 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)?
.
> No, what it means is that I am of the opinion that he is
> neither villain or hero, but rather somewhere in-between.
.
 Ah, the old somewhere in-between ploy, eh?
.
>> [snip] 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?
.
> Actually, what I said was:
.
>>> 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.
.
> So, in a sense we are in agreement. But he is by no means
> the first priestly Pharaoh, and he is certainly not the
> first prophet.
.
 Again I must ask what leads you to such impressive certainty?
We have already established that the word and concept of
prophet did not exist in AE. Of course there are certain texts
that fall into the category of prophetic literature (eg. 'The
Admonitions of Ipu-Wer' and 'The Prophecy of Nefer-rohu'), but
chiefly because they deal with themes of fortune-telling and/or
sooth-saying. However, these texts where written by anonymous
scribes/priests, and not by self-aware prophets as such; unless
you feel that a talent for fortune-telling automatically earns the
title of prophet? Needless to say, I do not think that such a clumsy
and misleading measuring stick is anywhere near adequate to the
task of finding and identifying the genuine article. In other words,
while there are clear traces of prophetic tendencies among the old
wisdom-scribes, we must very careful about making claims that
they were prophets in the modern understanding (or rather
misunderstanding) of the term.
.
> He is the first to exclude all other gods, but before we get
> carried away with his originality, I think you should know
> that his "Hymn to the Aten" isn't much different from other
> "Hymns to Amun" of the period.
.
  Oh yes, there are many parallels and similarities in the texts
regarding style, various phrases, diction, and so forth. It's
interesting, and not unusual as a literary hymn, as you say.
Akhenaton's originality seems to be more general than specific.
.
>> "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
.
> You are projecting modern thought backward in time.
.
  Not necessarily. These parameters for defining and identifying
the prophet are both flexible and timeless. They apply as well to
Akhenaton as they do to, 4X, Leo Tolstoy, and every prophet in
between. However, those who simply equate prophecy with
fortune-telling, and then identify ancient sooth-sayers as
"prophets", are the ones who are projecting modern thought
backward in time! At least I am making an effort to construct
an adequate definition and working model of the prophet as a
distinct and identifiable entity. Apparently this is more than the
experts on Ancient Egyptian religion and the priesthood are
willing to do.
.
> Do you have any supporting evidence for these statements?
.
  These eight qualities of the prophet are the result of my own
meager efforts to come to grips with the strange and fascinating
history of the prophets. So no, there is no supporting evidence
beyond the bizarre reasonings of the offensive one.
.
> Where, in any of the Ancient Literature or texts, are
> prophets described as such?
.
  Nowhere, Beth. Can't you see that this is precisely the main
source of the problem? The prophets are NOT taken seriously by
the historians and Egyptologists. This is why they so casually
dismiss them as mere fortune-tellers and mystical babblers.
Obviously they judge that the ancient prophets do not even
merit any real consideration. In an atmosphere of such
appalling apathy, how can they claim to know anything about
the prophets?
.
>> [snip] 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 guess we are going to have to agree to disagree
> on this one. [:)]
.
 okay. no problemo.
.
>> [snip] 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?
.
> I'd say that the bulk of the evidence has absolutely nothing
> to do with what Akhenaten may have thought about the
> 'meaning and purpose' of the pharaoh's role. You see,
> evidence can't get into people's thoughts. And that
> seems to be what you are trying to do. -- Beth
.
  I am trying to understand why he did the things he did, said the
things he said, and believed the things he believed. Of course
this necessarily involves some attempt to get inside his head
in order to try and see the world through his eyes. Even some
crude approximation in this direction is better than nothing at
all, I think.
x

+
> On 26Feb Beth wrote: Textman, There is absolutely no evidence
> that Akhenaten was a "christlike" messiah/prophet/superman.
.
  textman replies: I am not using the term "messiah" in the
christian sense (which is VERY specific and particular). Rather, I
am using it in the far more generic and unspecific sense that it
had in the ancient world. So in *that* sense of the word there are
several great historical figures who can be validly identified as
messiah/king; including Cyrus of Persia, and Alexander the Great
(of Macedonia), both of whom had considerable influence on the
later development of the messiah-concept. Therefore, if we use
'messiah' in the correct historical sense (and NOT as a synonym
for 'christlike'), then we are perfectly justified in identifying
Akhenaton as Egypt's best (though perhaps not only) messiah.
.
  As for the label 'superman', I am not sure whether or not you
mean this with any shades of Nietzsche in mind, or as just a
reference to the big guy with the red cape. Either way, I do not
believe the term can be used of Akhenaton in any meaningful,
or even sensible, way. Therefore the bulk of your statement
appears to be composed chiefly of ignorance, willful misunder-
standing, and derogatory slurs, while the remainder is very
*obviously* incorrect.
.
 ... Are you sure that you're giving this topic ALL
the consideration it merits, Beth?
.
> When experts form theories about Amarna, they at least
> do so within the framework of the evidence found there.
.
   That is what they WANT to do, surely. That is what they TRY
to do, surely. But that is *not* what is ALWAYS achieved.
Interpretation (and even simple perception, for that matter)
OFTEN calls upon "outside resources" that are not even apparent
to the interpreter. This is a basic fact of life for any competent
historian, Beth, so don't even bother trying to pull the wool over
my eyes on this. Yes, my ignorance is unbounded, okay? We ALL
know *that*; but I'm not entirely ignorant of the ways of scholars
and scribes.
.
 In any case, I too am very interested in the physical evidence
and primary sources, and in forming theories with them in mind.
4X: I just came across a relatively recent translation of the 'Great
Hymn to Aton' which is surprisingly different (in many ways) from
the one by J.A.Wilson in Pritchard's ANET. That kind of makes me
wonder about the authority of the "standard texts"; because not
even the Koine Greek of the New Testament suffers from that
level of 'imprecision' and 'latitude'. This is doubtless due to the
more primitive aspects of using pictographs to render complex
ideas. The Egyptian language and script just aren't suited to be
anything other than entirely priestly. HA!
.
> I find it increasingly ironic that you denigrate
> their opinions,
.
 Not ALL their opinions, Beth. Only those that
clearly deny the truth of things . . .
.
> and in the same breath state such outlandish things!
.
 What outlandish things? The only outlandish things I have
heard lately are just those things that YOU have placed in
my mouth, and which I have been repeatedly denying!
.
> If you want to worship Akhenaten, fine.
.
 It's not "fine". I have no intention of doing such an
absurd thing, Beth. Obviously you haven't the first clue
what I'm about; let alone what I'm after. Give it up.
.
> But please don't preach here. -- Beth
.
 Hey, it's an occupational hazard okay. I'll try to control
myself so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities, but
this is the way the Lord buildeth his cyber-prophet; so if
you don't like it, take it up with Him!
.
> Beth previously asked: Why is the bent pyramid bent? [:)]
.
 Because it *wasn't* designed that way!
.
          - the semi-designed one - textman ;><
x