EgyptSearch Forums
Ancient Egypt and Egyptology Monotheism Before Ikhnaton or the Pyramids
|
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
Author | Topic: Monotheism Before Ikhnaton or the Pyramids |
Wally Member Posts: 649 |
posted 25 February 2005 12:50 PM
There are so many popular misconceptions about Ancient Egypt. One of the most insidious ones is the false notion that Egyptian monotheism originated during the 18th dynasty, during the reign of the king Ikhnaton. Nothing could be further from the truth. And as in many misconceptions, they are put forward by those who are either unaware of, or simply ignore critical and verifiable information already presented.
quote: This entire chapter (which often exhibits Budge's European chauvinism) also includes in depth analysis of several African religions from east, west, and central Africa. It also details the importance of the factor of Evil in African political thought, wherein the Devil is as powerful as God, and gives insight on the significance of the god Set.
IP: Logged |
rasol Member Posts: 2281 |
posted 25 February 2005 12:56 PM
Set as the devil? Set vs. Horus? What would be the philosophical context of a Kemetian making a decision to worship Horus? Would this have been seen as a 'blasphemy', or as a natural expression of Kemetic faith? IP: Logged |
Wally Member Posts: 649 |
posted 25 February 2005 01:20 PM
quote: Everyone should read this chapter, Budge explains all of this far better than I could. In fact, his analysis of African religious concepts removes a lot of the religious "abstractions"; makes it more real, more concrete... IP: Logged |
kingtut33 Member Posts: 32 |
posted 25 February 2005 01:37 PM
Amen Amen IP: Logged |
rasol Member Posts: 2281 |
posted 25 February 2005 01:40 PM
quote: I've read some of this before but will check it out again, and confer back. 'Still interested in everyone's ideas on Set, Horus etc.. IP: Logged |
Horemheb Member Posts: 907 |
posted 25 February 2005 01:48 PM
Wally, is this another 'Black God over Egypt'? Guess that one ran out of steam. Just what dynasty did this 'monotheism' exist under??? IP: Logged |
ABAZA Member Posts: 1235 |
posted 25 February 2005 01:50 PM
The Truth About Budge!! Why are there no books by Budge here? Sir E A Wallis Budge (1857-1934) published prolifically during his lifetime. The standard biographical study of Egyptologists summarises his achievements as follows: 'in his text editions, Budge was too prolific for careful work, and many of them are inaccurate by modern standards; he persisted in the use of an old system of transcription, and did not utilise many of the grammatical discoveries of the Berlin School; nevertheless without his phenomenal energy and devotion, many hieratic, Coptic, and other texts would not have become known and been made available until a much later date' (Who was who in Egyptology, 1995, p. 72). The usefulness of books by Sir Wallis Budge has been controversial. Budge ignored major developments made in the fields of transcription, grammar and lexicography, and was neglectful in matters of archaeology and provenance. Although he was an active collector, his publications fell behind contemporaneous scholarly standards and are now extremely outdated. Today, University students are strongly advised not to use them, because of their basic errors of fact and methodology. For this same reason the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan does not include any of Budge's books on its recommended reading list. Budge's works are still in print, but this is because they are out of copyright, and so the text can be cheaply reprinted. While they are well illustrated, full of information and extremely cheap, they are at best unreliable, and usually misleading.
quote: [This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 25 February 2005).] IP: Logged |
rasol Member Posts: 2281 |
posted 25 February 2005 01:52 PM
KemWer. IP: Logged |
Horemheb Member Posts: 907 |
posted 25 February 2005 02:00 PM
They don't care about that ABAZA. Remember their agenda, it's always political. You can be assured that facts will not get in the way of their point of view but they are the losers in the march of civilization. IP: Logged |
EGyPT2005 Member Posts: 106 |
posted 25 February 2005 02:10 PM
quote: Oh, give it a rest Horemheb! For once in your life, please stick to the parent topic at hand! IP: Logged |
Horemheb Member Posts: 907 |
posted 25 February 2005 02:14 PM
2005, 90% of these topics are mumbo jumbo, you know that full well. The topic of the thread has wally trying to quote religion from an unreliable source and drawing conclusions that could apply to 3/4's of the religions of the world. IP: Logged |
Roy_2k5 Member Posts: 146 |
posted 25 February 2005 04:23 PM
quote: Atleast do what EuroEvil is doing and actually prove something. All you have been doing from day one is just rant. Don't give us, "Egypt is Caucasian, because my next door neighbour told me" BS. IP: Logged |
Wally Member Posts: 649 |
posted 25 February 2005 05:23 PM
There are so many popular misconceptions about Ancient Egypt. One of the most insidious ones is the false notion that Egyptian monotheism originated during the 18th dynasty, during the reign of the king Ikhnaton. Nothing could be further from the truth. And as in many misconceptions, they are put forward by those who are either unaware of, or simply ignore critical and verifiable information already presented.
quote: This entire chapter (which often exhibits Budge's European chauvinism) also includes in depth analysis of several African religions from east, west, and central Africa. It also details the importance of the factor of Evil in African political thought, wherein the Devil is as powerful as God, and gives insight on the significance of the god Set.
IP: Logged |
Super car Member Posts: 336 |
posted 25 February 2005 05:27 PM
I know the feeling. You can't start a meaningful thread without distracters derailing from the topic. IP: Logged |
Wally Member Posts: 649 |
posted 25 February 2005 05:32 PM
quote: Kinda like the scene of watching adults sitting in the room and trying to hold a civil conversation, and there are undisciplined little brats running around, yelling and screaming all over the place... IP: Logged |
Super car Member Posts: 336 |
posted 25 February 2005 06:36 PM
Wally, have you already read the "Egyptian Religion" by Budge. I have just started reading it. This is also yet another of his work that emphasizes monotheism in Ancient Egyptian cosmology. IP: Logged |
ABAZA Member Posts: 1235 |
posted 25 February 2005 06:42 PM
Why are you guys trying to promote academic sources that are discredited? Even the British Museum is not recommending using Budge as a source of reliable information!! The Truth About Budge!! Sir E A Wallis Budge (1857-1934) published prolifically during his lifetime. The standard biographical study of Egyptologists summarises his achievements as follows: 'in his text editions, Budge was too prolific for careful work, and many of them are inaccurate by modern standards; he persisted in the use of an old system of transcription, and did not utilise many of the grammatical discoveries of the Berlin School; nevertheless without his phenomenal energy and devotion, many hieratic, Coptic, and other texts would not have become known and been made available until a much later date' (Who was who in Egyptology, 1995, p. 72). The usefulness of books by Sir Wallis Budge has been controversial. Budge ignored major developments made in the fields of transcription, grammar and lexicography, and was neglectful in matters of archaeology and provenance. Although he was an active collector, his publications fell behind contemporaneous scholarly standards and are now extremely outdated. Today, University students are strongly advised not to use them, because of their basic errors of fact and methodology. For this same reason the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan does not include any of Budge's books on its recommended reading list. Budge's works are still in print, but this is because they are out of copyright, and so the text can be cheaply reprinted. While they are well illustrated, full of information and extremely cheap, they are at best unreliable, and usually misleading.
quote: IP: Logged |
Wally Member Posts: 649 |
posted 26 February 2005 01:35 PM
quote: Here is Budge's explanation of Set in the Egyptian religion:
quote: Some Names of Set Also a name for Asia - Sett (in Hompt Sett; "Asiatic copper") IP: Logged |
rasol Member Posts: 2281 |
posted 26 February 2005 02:32 PM
Didn't RamsesII worship Set? How does one come to worship a demonic figure? I mean, even just as a political act. IP: Logged |
Super car Member Posts: 336 |
posted 26 February 2005 03:32 PM
Of interest is what Budge states about common misunderstanding of Egyptian belief:
quote:
In reference to the above text, it should be noted that Ra, the Sun-god, is actually a symbol of invisible one Almighty God. [This message has been edited by Super car (edited 26 February 2005).] IP: Logged |
Wally Member Posts: 649 |
posted 26 February 2005 05:01 PM
Great Post, Super car!! [This message has been edited by Wally (edited 26 February 2005).] IP: Logged |
Djehuti Member Posts: 55 |
posted 26 February 2005 09:37 PM
Interesting! That's been kind of the debate concerning Egyptian religion. There is one argument that suggests the religion was monolatry, in which a single divinity is manifested as many like in Hinduism, and there is just the basic polytheism argument which suggests many divinities. So which is it? The Egyptian religion seems to follow the exact same principles as many other African religions, where there is a supreme deity, usually androgynous but sometimes of either sex, and then lesser divinities. The word neteru, seems to simply mean spirits, and can mean anything from the gods, to the pharaoh, to the spirits of the deseased. What exact evidence do you have that suggests it was monolatry insead of plain polytheism? IP: Logged |
Super car Member Posts: 336 |
posted 27 February 2005 01:40 AM
quote: If you re-exam the Budge text I provided earlier, he states that from the various Egyptian texts, it appeared that both monotheism and polytheism existed. Most of the gods like Osiris, including Ra himself, are "manifestations, or phases, or attributes of one god", the invisible God. In other words, these aren't really separate gods, but incarnations. This in itself would be aligned to the monotheistic approach, however outwardly it might appear to a layperson, not familiar with the concept. Texts that suggest that at one point a polytheistic approach was taken, in the very early social development stage of the Nile Valley communties, are exmeplified by the following:
quote: While it is hard to determine when the Egyptians started adopting the monotheistic approach, since "it existed there at a period so remote that it is useless to attempt to measure years the interval of time" (according to Budge), it appears that the monotheistic approach took steam throughout dynastic time. Nevertheless the periodic references like the example above, provide some indicators that at one point, at an earlier timefrme, a polytheistic approach was also in place. BTW, the "god of th city", is described by Budge as the following: god of the city in which a man lived was regarded as the *ruler of the city*, and the people of that city no more thought of neglecting to provide him with what they considered to be due to his rank and position than they thought of neglecting to supply their own wants. ...this would be a living person, as indicated by lower cases.
quote: As stated above, neteru are just manifestations of the one invisible Almighty God, with Ra, the Sun-god, being the type and symbol of God.
quote:
In many cases, the particular incarnation or being with god-like qualities to which a hymn is dedicated, is identified with Ra. As Budge put it, an example of this can be seen in a hymn to Hapi in which, he is called “One” , and is said to have created himself. Later on in the text, in order to identify him with Ra, the epithets which belong to the Sun-god are applied to him. The hymn in question was popular in the 18th & 19th dynasties.
quote: It is essential to actually read books by these various Egyptologists, including the book from which this was taken “Egyptian Religion” by Budge. You will have to become familiar with the whole concept of Ra, and the Neteru to get a clearer picture. Reference of Ra appears quite frequently in association with the Neteru. The various inscriptions containing hymns and epithets of Ra and the Neteru are available in these works, and in many cases, the sources of the inscriptions are provided. [This message has been edited by Super car (edited 27 February 2005).] IP: Logged |
ausar Moderator Posts: 3372 |
posted 27 February 2005 02:23 AM
My suggestion would to be learn mdu ntr yourself without depending upon second hand sources like Budge,Faulkner,Hornung or any other Egyptologist.
In the meanwhile, I would suggest you read Erik Hornung's book about ancient Egyptian religion. IP: Logged |
Super car Member Posts: 336 |
posted 27 February 2005 02:49 AM
quote: Point taken, but would he not be considered a secondary source? Seriously, how do you learn the "mdu ntr" without resorting to a variety of sources to see where the consistencies lie? IP: Logged |
ausar Moderator Posts: 3372 |
posted 27 February 2005 03:10 AM
Well, as a layman you have to look at secondary sources. You only other alternative would be to learn Coptic[perferably Sahidic] or learn any other Afro-Asiatic language.
You should join this list and post questions to the people. IP: Logged |
Roy_2k5 Member Posts: 146 |
posted 27 February 2005 07:13 AM
quote: Djehuti, even Hinduism has a supreme divinity and the other dieties just represent the supreme one. It is pretty obvious that Western 'experts' in the past did not want to label the AE religion as monotheistic because of racist reasons. This is the same reason why Hinduism is also labelled as such. Now I wonder whetger the Native Indian religion was polytheistic? What about the Nordic religions? IP: Logged |
Super car Member Posts: 336 |
posted 27 February 2005 01:45 PM
It must be noted that despite the monotheistic base of Egyptian belief, the neteru appeared to have added to the confusion felt by outsiders or foreigners in Egypt. Akhenaten's rejection of the neteru is what made him stand out, because it revealed the true monotheistic base of Egyptian belief. Akhenaten simply just stuck to Ra, the Sun-god, whom as Budge and many sources have made clear time and again, was the type and symbol of Almighty God. The Almighty God here, is the one and eternal spirit. [This message has been edited by Super car (edited 27 February 2005).] IP: Logged |
Wally Member Posts: 649 |
posted 27 February 2005 04:06 PM
quote: Amen IP: Logged |
Djehuti Member Posts: 55 |
posted 27 February 2005 04:27 PM
This could explain why even though local cults througout Egypt had different deities and cosmogonies, they were all complementary to each other and never conflicted with one another. IP: Logged |
Wally Member Posts: 649 |
posted 27 February 2005 04:43 PM
quote: First of all, we have to disabuse ourselves of the notion of modern organized religion as being more 'sophisticated' than that of Ancient Egypt. In my opinion, modern religions are merely a gross simplification of an extremely complex and sophisticated African philosophical system. Also, the simplistic notion that monotheism and polytheism cannot co-exist; there can be no God and gods. It betrays an ignorance of a complex Egyptian philosophy, which Egyptologists recognize this as being the reason for the debate - monotheism vs. polytheism - in the first place. In the Mdu Ntr: Ntr - Nuter: (Nute in Coptic; the 'r' in Coptic was dropped) means God Budge is an excellent source, especially when he says that the only way to understand this religious philosophy is to consult its living practitioners, starting with those who still practice it in Egypt today in some form (the Egyptian Fellah), and the other forms of it in the rest of Africa. Budge would certainly agree that you can probably learn more about the Ancient Egyptian religion from a discussion with a Yoruba individual who practices the traditional Yoruba religion than you could from him... [This message has been edited by Wally (edited 27 February 2005).] IP: Logged |
rasol Member Posts: 2281 |
posted 27 February 2005 06:21 PM
quote: What then can we say about the substance of of the Akhenaten revolution. Would you say he was trying to return Kemet to monothesim, under Aten? IP: Logged |
Super car Member Posts: 336 |
posted 27 February 2005 07:14 PM
quote: Egyptians never left the monotheistic base, in so far as the neteru were treated as manifestations of Ra, who in turn is the visible symbol of the invisible God Almighty. This is what needs to be understood. Earlier I wrote, with regards to the Akhenaten:
quote: The 'gods' who were manifestations of the one God, convey a polythiestic outlook to an otherwise truly monotheistic concept. Take note of the three elements recognized in ancient Egyptian belief (identified by Dr. Wiedemann), that was mentioned in the first Budge text I quoted. Some scholars are of the opinion that Egyptian belief, in their lesser social development state in Pre-historic times, may have started out being polytheistic, before the adoption of the monotheistic approach. Of course, there is no evidence that determines when the Egyptians first started adopting the monotheistic concept, since it goes back to a remote period. Akhenaten did away with these manifestations! [This message has been edited by Super car (edited 27 February 2005).] IP: Logged |
sunstorm2004 Member Posts: 236 |
posted 27 February 2005 08:59 PM
If AE religion can be labeled polytheistic, "modern" religions can be considered polytheistic in the same way, with their pantheons of angels and patron saints and such, essentially taken as manifestations of the greatness of the one god. Seems quite parallel to:
quote: IP: Logged |
Thought2 Member Posts: 1035 |
posted 27 February 2005 11:32 PM
A Conversation with Christopher Ehret Christopher Ehret, UCLA Interviewed by WHC Co-editor Tom Laichas
Ehret: The case of this oldest word for God in Niger-Congo is instructive. This word for God was nyambe. The amb was the verb. The e was a suffix you needed in order to make the verb into a noun. The category of noun, the singular/plural marker, was the ny-. In the Ashanti kingdom, it was nyame. In the kingdom of Kongo, it was zambe. These were sound changes, but it was the same word. Now, ny- signified a category for animals and things that don't fit into any other category. So we have here is a word that means "the beginner of things." Literally, God is the origin of things. The verb it comes from tells us these people already had the creator god concept. WHC: You describe two other groups. One of them is the Afrasans. Can you talk about them for a moment? Ehret: These are people who have been called Afro-Asiatic and also Afrasian. I'm saying "Afrasan" because I'm trying to get "Asia" out. There is still this idea that the Afro-Asiatic family had to come out of Asia. Once you realize that it's an African family with one little Asian offshoot, well, that itself is a very important lesson for world historians. WHC: You seem to be suggesting that the Semitic monotheism Jewish, Christian and Islamic monotheism descends from African models. Is that fair? Ehret: Yeah, actually it is. Look at the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." It's not like the Muslim creed, which is "There is no God but God." It's doesn't say "there is no god but Yahweh, and Moses is his prophet." It is an admittance that there are other gods. It is an example of henotheism. And the Hebrew tribes are like the Omati clan groups. The tribes are clans writ larger. Like the Omati clans, they track their ancestry back ten or fifteen generations to a common ancestor. And these common ancestors were twelve brothers. (Actually, there are thirteen. They have to turn two of them, Ephraim and Manasseh, into half tribes, because thirteen wasn't a good number. I always loved that. There are really thirteen tribes, but you have to combine two of them). WHC: How does a small group of Semites coming in from Africa transform the language of a region in which they are a minority? Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people the Mushabaeans? are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East. IP: Logged |
Wally Member Posts: 649 |
posted 28 February 2005 01:28 PM
quote: I think the answer to your question can be found in the realms of "real politiks" rather than in religion. It's involved and convoluted but you should look into the power of the Amon priesthood, its power and influence over the state, and a possible effort by the Pharaoh Ikhnaton to curb it. It isn't a coincidence that with his overthrow, TutAnkhAten would become TutAnkhAmon... [This message has been edited by Wally (edited 28 February 2005).] IP: Logged |
Wally Member Posts: 649 |
posted 28 February 2005 01:54 PM
quote: ...which is a long, though insightful way of saying: According to the Mdu Ntr Ntr > Nuter:God
IP: Logged |
Super car Member Posts: 336 |
posted 28 February 2005 04:41 PM
quote: Ehret has a point here. It is consistent with the conclusion of various scholars, that pre-historic Egyptian beliefs was "polytheistic". This developed into what would be, as Ehret put it, "henotheism". If one thinks about it, pre-dynastic Egypt was made up of Lower and Upper Egyptian kingdoms, which means each had their own local gods and beliefs. This is consistent with what Budges says about the "god in the city":
quote: Despite the above, it is restated, from the same source:
quote: Upon unification of Lower and Upper Egypt, apparently all the local gods had to be brought under a system, with the important and surviving ones included. Despite the numerous local gods before unification, it appears that there were some common elements found in the beliefs of different kingdoms, cities, or villages. This would have made it easier to bring them together under one system, for lack of a better word. The belief in one Supreme being and a creation story is an example of this. Earlier reference to "enneads" was made in the Budge text, appears to have been a Greek reference to nine gods of Heliopolis, and the Egyptians used the term "pesdjet" to denote a collection of deities in any temple. Examples of this can be, the aforementioned 9 deities of Heliopolis, the 7 deities of the Abydos temple, or the 15 deities of the Karnak temple complex.(courtesy of philae.nu) Courtesy of www.philae.nu, we have: quote: Source: http://www.philae.nu/akhet/ennead1.html "The growth of the Egyptian religion is one of the reasons why Egypt ended up with such a complex and polytheistic religious system. When a town grew in prominence, so did the god. When the town was deserted, the god disappeared. Only a few of the many deities ended up in the Egyptian pantheon, and even then their popularity waxed and waned through the thousands of years of Egyptian history. Another reason for complexity was when people moved, their god did, too. This meant that at the new town, there was sometimes a battle between the old and new gods - but the Egyptian gods were easily merged, with other gods taking over that god's attributes and abilities! So it is that some of the ancient gods of Neolithic and Predynastic Egypt came to national prominence are considered to be some of the main gods in the Egyptian pantheon today: Amun of Thebes, Ptah of Hikuptah (Memphis), Horus (the Elder) of Nekhem, Set of Tukh (Ombos), Ra of Iunu (Heliopolis), Min of Gebtu (Koptos), Hathor of Dendra and Osiris of Abydos." http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/predynastic.htm This is perhaps a gist of the reasons behind the complexity of Egyptian cosmology, but it appears that idea of the invisible God is a very old one, for which I doubt any evidence has been uncovered indicating when the idea came about in the Nile Valley. [This message has been edited by Super car (edited 28 February 2005).] IP: Logged |
sokarya_686@hotmail.com Member Posts: 608 |
posted 02 March 2005 06:14 PM
The first false notion is that Akhenaton was a monotheist, the second false notion is to believe it. Akhenaton believed in the Aten, he believed in Re, and since he created himself the Adama, he must have believed in Atum. People have had many ideas about why Akhenaton had himself depicted as an asexual being. For example there is a statue of himself with an asexual body, without genitals, and coloured red. The most logical conclusion as to why he would have wished to depict himself in this way was because he was the father and mother in the one person of himself, self-created from the red earth - Atum or Adam(with Eve) Since Atum is the patron of the sun, he then had to bring Re into the picture, so as not to confuse that doctrine with the Aten, which had nothing to do with the sun except in a symbolic way. Charlie IP: Logged |
Super car Member Posts: 336 |
posted 02 March 2005 07:45 PM
quote: Aten was the representation of Re or Ra, the Sun-God. I don't know how that becomes non-monotheistic? "The new religion could be summed up as "there is no god but Aten, and Akhenaten is his prophet" - touregypt.net That sums it up. [This message has been edited by Super car (edited 02 March 2005).] IP: Logged |
sokarya_686@hotmail.com Member Posts: 608 |
posted 03 March 2005 08:14 PM
I can only reply that the Atenists were no more worshipping the sun than the Christians worship a piece of wood called a crucifix. Even if I were to go along with your suggestion here, Ra or Re is only "representative" of the risen sun. He originally manifested himself at Heliopolis in the form of the ben ben stone nurtured in the bosom of Nun from which by an effort of self will he arose from the Abyss as Atum, and appeared in the sun as resplendent light. He then gave birth to Shu (the holy breath) seen in the rays from the Aten disc, and Tefnut, who without the assistance of a mate in turn gave birth to Geb and Nut who then produced Isis, Osiris, Set and Nephthys. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Akhenaton worshipped just the symbol of Aten and Re without the theology. For example why would the Anke appear at the end of the suns rays unless there were a whole theology and doctrines involving all the natures of Ra. The Book of the Dead actually refers to Ra and Osiris as the same being! Theres only one God in the Bible represented by a Cross on the binding cover, but God has many characters. With Akhenaton it was decided not to physically represent those facets literally as idols. IP: Logged |
swam Junior Member Posts: 30 |
posted 04 March 2005 04:21 PM
Akheniten, ha kill the ntrws, let the good ones survive, under the one and only, nb maat, shou, nout....... Itn has more to do with the light concept then with the sun, imo IP: Logged |
Super car Member Posts: 336 |
posted 04 March 2005 06:50 PM
quote:
In your theorey, you fail to comprehend that Atum came from Primeval Waters, which actually if one fully grasps it, has no form. So Atum was created from himself, and then rose out of the Primeval darkness or water to form the Primeval Mound. This Primeval Mound became the dwelling place for the sun-god. The Sun-god, is the manifestation of God's power through the sun. The power can perhaps be expressed as: " symbolic of life, warmth, light and day. It dispels the darkness and cold. It calls the unseen seed-life from out of the dark soil. It brings forth the light from the darkness of the night, as well as life from out of the underworld. It symbolizes the Creator's power to enliven, nourish and enlighten. " - courtesy of John Van Auken So Ra himself came to represent the sun. Re or Ra, originally meant the heavenly body, joined Herakhty (a recorgnized sun god) to represent the morning sun, and adopted the falcon head. Later he joined Atum, to become Re-Atum, manifestation of the setting sun. Now the Aten was the sun disc itself, again a heavenly body, that became personified as Re or Ra. "aten" in itself is simply meant a disc, and could represent any round body. Its association with divinity first appears in the Tale of Sinhueat about 2000 B.C., which claims that Amenemhat I rose into the sky in unification with Aten, his creator. It was just a matter of time, for the 'aten' to be elevated into a deity in its own right from being a mere symbol. Akhenaten accepted Aten as the only representation of the formless God.
quote: Source: http://touregypt.net/featurestories/amarnaperiod.htm Earlier I posted: "Heliopolis "Nun or The Primeval Waters Before the structured cosmos was created there was only darkness which held a limitless water, the primeval Nun, also called the Father of Gods. There were no temples built to Nun, but this deity is made present in many shrines as the sacred lake which *symbolizes* the non-existence before creation. The concept of the Primeval waters are common to all Egyptian creation myths. Even if their details differ, they are all explanations of how light and order was formed in the unordered, unstructured chaos of darkness and timelessness." Now add this... "Atum Atum is therefore the creator god who created the universe, he is the supreme being and master of the forces and elements of the universe. Utterance 600 in the Pyramid Texts: O Atum! When you came into being you rose up as a High Hill, You shone as the Benben Stone in the Temple of the Benu in Heliopolis. ...Here Atum is the Primeval Mound itself. This is understable when we think of how the ground and banks along the Nile rose from the receding waters each year, soon sprouting new weeds and greenery, and animals and insects would inhabit them again. Life seemed to come out of the ground itself. This is the idea behind Atum, the Primeval Mound, the Creator, god who within him contains the possibilities of every life form. Then Atum created Shu and Tefnut, an extract from Papyrus Brehmer-Rhind states: All manifestations came into being after I developed...no sky existed no earth existed...I created on my own every being...my fist became my spouse....I copulated with my hand...I sneezed out Shu...I spat out Tefnut...Next Shu and Tefnut produced Geb and Nut...Geb and Nut gave birth to Osiris...Seth, Isis and Nephtys...ultimately they produced the population of this land." Next we have: "Prior to Akhenaten, the sun disk could be a symbol in which major gods appear and so we find such phrases as "Atum who is in his disk ('aten'). However, from there it is only a small leap for the disk itself to become a god. It was Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) who first initiated the appearance of the true god, Aten, by formulating a didactic name for him. Hence, in the early years of Amenhotep IV's reign, the sun god Re-Horakhty, traditionally depicted with a hawk's head, became identical to Aten, who was now worshipped as a god, rather than as an object associated with the sun god. Hence, prior to Akhenaten, we speak of The Aten, while afterwards it is the god Aten. Initially, Aten's relationship with other gods was very complex and it should even be mentioned that some Egyptologists have suggested that Amenhotep IV may have equated Aten to his own father, Amenhotep III. Others have suggested that, rather than true monotheism, the cult of Aten was a form of henotheism, in which one god was effectively elevated above many others, though this certainly does not seem to be the case later during the Amarna period... Amenhotep IV, who would change his name to Akhenaten to reflect Aten's importance, first replaced the state god Amun with his newly interpreted god. The hawk-headed figure of Re-Horakhty-Aten was then abandoned in favor of the iconography of the solar disk, which was now depicted as an orb with a uraeus at its base emitting rays that ended in human hands either left open or holding ankh signs that gave "life" to the nose of both the king and the Great Royal Wife, Nefertiti. It should however be noted that this iconography actually predates Amenhotep IV with some examples from the reign of Amenhotep II, though now it became the sole manner in which Aten was depicted. Aten was now considered the sole, ruling deity and thus received a royal titulary, inscribed like royal names in two oval cartouches. As such, Aten now celebrated its own royal jubilees (Sed-festivals). Thus, the ideology of kingship and the realm of religious cult were blurred. The Aten's didactic name became "the living One, Re-Harakhty who rejoices on the horizon, in his name (identity) which is Illumination ('Shu, god of the space between earth and sky and of the light that fills that space') which is from the solar orb." This designation changes everything theologically in Egypt. The traditions Egyptians had adopted since the earliest times no longer applied. According to Akhenaten, Re and the sun gods Khepri, Horakhty and Atum could no longer be accepted as manifestations of the sun. The concept of the new god was not so much the sun disk, but rather the life giving illumination of the sun. To make this distinction, his name would be more correctly pronounced, "Yati(n)". Aten was now the king of kings, needing no goddess as a companion and having no enemies who could threaten him. In effect, this worship of Aten was not a sudden innovation on the part of one king, but the climax of a religious quest among Egyptians for a benign god limitless in power and manifest in all countries and natural phenomena. After Aten ascended to the top of the pantheon, most of the old gods retained their positions at first, though that would soon change as well. Gods of the dead such as Osiris and Soker were several of the first to vanish from the Egyptian religious front... Aten took on many characteristics alien to Re. Re did not function in a vacuum of gods and goddesses. Yet there remained cloudy associations with Re even as Akhenaten moved into his new capital." - touregypt.net Needless to say, the above runs contrary to your ideology of affairs. IP: Logged |
swam Junior Member Posts: 30 |
posted 06 March 2005 12:20 PM
Itn, Is it that terrible to imagine Akhenaton, could have been at the base of the concept “none other then Thee?” But then taboos are disregarded in collective blackout and one shrieks to blasphemy. . In Africa and through the "animist" ...."naturist" hierarchy, the ntr "superviser" was not claimed “official faith” to me this difference is enough to attribute a seal to Akh n Itn's monotheism. Can we be sure these beliefs are misconceptions?, we have the partisans and non partisans. Aton Faith was put into focus in an obvious way, the hymns are explicit about the benefits of this energy (or whatever one names it), the temple was in the open air…, the man was secluded onto his space, kept away from the dark priests of Amun like plague. Did these see danger in those changes, a diminution in the distribution of offerings, and a threat to their power? Akh n Itn intransigent? I recall seeing in one of the tombs (Pentu?) a Shw deity, personified. Traces of other Gods /Goddesses were found in Tel Amarna, Isis, Shou, Maat, probably more. Light can only travel through air In Horemheb’s tomb the dw3 to Re Horackhty, the heil is increased, i.e IP: Logged |
sokarya_686@hotmail.com Member Posts: 608 |
posted 06 March 2005 11:13 PM
If anyone really wants to try and understand the relationship of the Aten and Re and what Akhenaton was trying to achieve, they only need to read the beginning of Genesis in the Bible. There they will find the beginnings of creation, which is exactly according to Memphite theology. That is to say that Ptah was the initiator of the whole process of creation, the oceans (Nun) came first, and the air (shu), The Sun (Aten) then the dry land (benben) appears out of chaos, then Atum is self-created as man the Adama. Akhenaton an his priests had no doubt worked out for themselves that to merely worship a sun disc, or an alien god, through only one person, Akhenaton, was not going to work after Akhenaton died. Memphite theology provides the answer for a link between the superior invisible God, and man. People have often wondered why akhenaton depicted himself, his family and his followers in an asexual guise suggesting medical reasons, artistic reasons, and poetic licence. The reason in my view that he depicted himself thus was he wanted to be seen as the Self-created Atum (Adam) As Atum he would be both father and mother in the one priest-king - The Adama. As the Adama he had the ability to then pass on his special relationship with god to his priesthood, and all those he chose as his descendents. There is a very famous unfinished statue of akhenaton depicted as the Adama, with male and female attributes, both mother and father of his new race of people. This statue has no genitalia because we are not talking about human matters, but spiritual matters. This statue was painted red to signify the red earth. It was only some time later, after creating the Adama, that God created Eve. Initially Adam was both father and mother. The bible is quite clear that Eve was introduced into the doctrine some time later. At the point that Akhenaton commissioned his statue, this was the precise point Wherein Adam was running about naked in the Garden of Aten(Eden) After Eve was introduced, they all ran about naked, until the serpent got involved. Of course the serpent was Aye,and he was the one who put them all to shame. The Akhenaton era is so clearly defined in the Genesis and Exodus stories in the Bible, I really cant understand why people dont take more notice of it. All the Egyptian mythology that anyone could wish to know is all there, condensed into just two books. IP: Logged |
All times are GMT (+2) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
(c) 2003 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c