*

+
  On Living Waters From Temple Stones
.
/ Forum > Guardian's Egypt's Ancient Egypt Bulletin Board /
/ Copies to TOL General Theology & alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Topic > Tombs and Temples / January & February 2002 /
/ Subtopic > The Complete TEMPLES OF ANCIENT EGYPT /
.
   On 27Jan02 textman wrote: I'm curious about this Aten temple
at Karnak that Doug mentioned. Does anyone know what kind of
activities went on there? 4X: I'm assuming that there were no
sacrifices going on in there, so what were the rituals like. Also,
what kind of texts were on the walls and columns? Does anyone
have this info, or is it all lost in time?
.
                  - the constantly curious one - textman ;>
x

+
   On 29Jan James M. Vance wrote: The Aten temple at Karnak was
later dismantled and used as fill for one of the pylons. Actually, in
doing this the remains of the temple were preseved quite well.
There is an ongoing project to re-assemble the wall carvings, and,
hopefully sometime in the future it well be possible to reconstruct
the temple. The Aten temples were quite different from those of the
prrevious gods. As the symbol of the Aten was the sun, the temples
were built with open courts, so that the sunshine could fill the
temple. Animal sacrifices were not given to the god, rather
vegetarian food-stuffs, large bouquets of flowers--anything that
grew was considered to be an offering to Aten. The reliefs on the
walls and columns were, basically, hymns of praise to Aten,
Aknenaten as his "son" and chief priest, Nefertiti and the royal family.
x

+
 On 5Feb textman wrote: Thx, James. That's good to know. I'm just
beginning my research into Akh-en-Aton, and I want to get *ALL*
my facts right side up. So when you say he was 'chief priest', do
you mean to imply that Akh-en-Aton thought of himself in terms
relating to the duties and responsibilities of a chief priest?
x

+
 On 5Feb James M. Vance wrote: he thought of himself as the
physical son of the Aton. It was only through him that the wishes
of the Aton where known. Of course, a high priest was necessary,
and the cult of the Aton expanded to include not only temples,
but almost every facet of life. The temples of the Aton were very
different, too. Those temples of the other gods all had a dark,
hidden holy of holies. In contrast, the temples of the Aton were
open to sunlight and air, lightness and warmth from the sun were
two of the gifts to man from the Aton. Offering were different, too.
Instead of animal sacrifices, most offerings were flowers and food.
x

+
 On 6Feb textman replies: Yes, I understand most of that, James;
but I don't think that you have quite convinced me that 'son' is
somehow to be understood as the equivalent of 'high priest'.
Akh-en-Aton does not clearly identify himself as a high-priestly
type dude, or anything else like that, so I really can't imagine that
the archeological evidence (such as it is) in any way supports this
(I dare say) common idea that Akh-en-Aton should be understood
as some kind of high priest of the cult of Aton. Is it not clear to all
that Akh-en-Aton is much more than any mere high priest? I rather
think that by referring to himself as "your beloved son" (Hymn
to Aton) he is deliberately distinguishing himself from all of the
more traditional types of claims to divinity, as well as from the
customary ranks and titles and patterns of religious practice.
.
   Why then do the experts persist in defining Akh-en-Aton
according to the ancient categories of priest and high priest?
I think it is done chiefly because the experts find it most
convenient this way. After all, most Egyptologists, archeologists,
and historians are atheists who believe in nothing; except perhaps
in the unquestioned supremacy of science over religion. How then
can they be expected to understand a man like the black pharaoh?
In the course of my research I am continually surprised by the
sorts of things people say about this Akh-en-Aton chap. What
is clear to me already is that only a very few have anything
approaching a valid understanding of him. And no one (apparently)
has as yet any kind of completely satisfactory explanation. And I
also suspect we will never get one of these from the experts and
scholars.
.
 Consider this; you obviously appreciate the significance of the
open-temple design, and the lack of bloody sacrifices. Others
make much of the artistic accomplishments at Akhetaten
(Horizon of Aton), but all of these are merely the visible
expressions of a new and remarkable rationalization of religion
as a whole; this is also implied by your observation that "the cult
of the Aton expanded to include not only temples, but almost
every facet of life". In other words, Akh-en-Aton's new faith was
born of a powerful spiritual vision that revolutionized not just
religion, but also 'every facet of life'. The open-temple design is
the material reflection of an inner spiritual reality, a new and
joyful openness toward God, as well as to creation as a whole. A
new faith needs a new religion to carry it. A new religion involves
a new way of life and thinking and being. This is why the so-called
'cult of Aton' failed to survive. The unimaginative and tradition-
bound peoples of the black-land were simply incapable of
comprehending the meaning and promise of the pharaoh’s new faith.
.
 In the same way, the unimaginative and tradition-bound experts
and scholars are also incapable of comprehending the meaning
and promise of the pharaoh’s new faith. Being unable, or unwilling,
to think about what Akh-en-Aton meant when he called himself
"Aton's beloved son through whom God's will is made known", the
experts simply fall to the nearest handy category that seems to
fit the facts, and so reduce the black pharaoh to yet another high
priest. But this judgment does NOT fit the facts at all, and, in point
of fact, is unhistorical in the extreme. Will the experts and scholars
admit that their spiritual poverty renders them incompetent to
make judgments and evaluations of this religious revolutionary?
It seems to me that their own ingrained arrogance prevents them
from honoring the simple demands of basic honesty.
.
 In other words, I don't believe that Akh-en-Aton thought of him-
self in terms pertaining to some kind of high priest. And if he did
not think of himself this way, then why on earth should we?
Because is it convenient? No, that is just not good enough, sir.
Would it not be far more scientific to inquire instead toward a
better understanding of the man such that we may have a better
idea of what the king had in mind when he calls himself 'thy
beloved son'? It seems to me that this is the only path that leads
to valid knowledge and true understanding.
.
   What do you think, James?
.
 So then what was the dark king thinking? When you say "It was
only through him that the wishes of the Aton where known", this
suggests something more along the lines of an angel/messenger
or prophet than a high priest. When you say that the cult
expanded to include "almost every facet of life", this also
suggests a more prophetic concern than a priestly one (since
priests are specialists (like scientists), and are chiefly concerned
with priestcraft). The lack of blood, and the open-temple design
is surely solid evidence in favor of this interpretation of the facts.
Even the pharaoh’s name constitutes evidence of this: Akh-en-
Aton -> Servant/Son of Aton. When you say that "The temples of
the Aton were very different, too", do you likewise admit that a
man like that could be very different from the routine evaluations
of the experts?
.
           - one who asks difficult questions - teextman ;>
x

Goto Next Dialogue

textman
*