3 ms·

I'm entirely off the current mainstream interpretation of Akhenaten. Akhenaten, to me, was hardly a "monotheist". In fact, if I were asked to name a historic fi

I'm entirely off the current mainstream interpretation of Akhenaten. Akhenaten, to me, was hardly a "monotheist". In fact, if I were asked to name a historic figure that was the famous pharoah of biblical lore (the anti-Moses) I would unhesitatingly point to Akhenaten. I suggest considering his treatment of 'temple' with the pre-existing Egyptian norm. His temple has no roof. The original Egyptian model reflected the canonical Macro-Micro duality and was in fact a 'closed' space. Akhenaten, per my reading, claimed that he was the incarnate 'one god'. No wonder the Egyptians erased all traces of his reign after his demise. They totally erased him from Egyptian records. Something to think about. (Egyptians were certainly 'godly'. Just review the Egyptian prayers of the dead.) O sole god, like whom there is no other! Thou didst create the world according to thy desire That is a prayer from ancient Egypt. That said, the idea that Hebrew mythological kings are in fact borrowings of Egyptian glory makes a lot of sense. Some of the imagery -- tributes being brought from far away lands to Solomon -- however is distinctly reminiscent of Persepolis. https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/relief-depicting-procession-apadana-darius-palace-perse-bas-relief-wall-persepolis-ancient-capital-achaemenid-103338045.jpg https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/relief-depicting-procession-...

netcan 6y ago
My interpretation is more banal. The borrowings are more superficial. We know that language and style used to describe kings, emperors, and gods are very similar. The "I am Sargon, King of Kings" style occurs in political and religious writings all throughout the region... with roots going deep into the bronze age. Recurring imagery, writing style, motifs, titles, etc. are the norm. Lots of cultural elements are broadly found throughout the greater region. It's not surprising that they'd exist in any two traditions. All these traditions affected eachother. Take the Sphinx motif, Seraphim in temple judaism. It's a motif found very widely, over a very long period of time. The imagery is reused. The symbolism is reused. It's impossible to draw a clear path of progression though. On monotheism... I don't think monotheism is all that significant, per se. Whatever the origins of this were, canaanite cities and kings were clearly being closely associated to single deities. One king, one god. Maybe one temple. That was a typical mode. Is that monotheism? Why care, outside of theology? What is significant about monotheism is not monotheism. It's the "jealous god," the strict prohibitions on "foreign worship." This exclusionism is what made the religion so successful in the long term. We see this even in modern times. Religions that tolerate multiple belief systems give way to monotheism.
- KMag 6y ago
  FYI, the name for the jealous god among many gods is "monolatry". Historically, monolatry has a strong tendency to morph into monotheism, as it's much more stable belief system vs. having solid reasons not to worship other gods on the side. In the Bible, there's evidence that the earliest Judaism was monolatrist[0]. You can see a very long period of frustration the priests have with people mostly worshipping the most powerful god, but hedging their bets with side worship of Baal Zebul, Asherah, etc. despite Yahweh's jealousy. They had a much easier time discouraging the side worship once they started asserting those side gods didn't exist, rather than saying they were dramatically less powerful. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatry#In_ancient_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatry#In_ancient_Israel
  - netcan 6y ago
    So... to my perspective, monolatry is the point. Monotheism is a good enough approximation in practice though. Also, it's not the idea of monolatry or monotheism that matters... it's the development of a religious culture than is effective at banning other religions. This is what made monotheism what it is, historically.
ncmncm 6y ago
What I have seen of Akhenaten has him representing Aten, the Sun god. We have a great deal of material on him (or rather on what he chose to have carved) despite erasure from records, because his capital was abandoned immediately after his death.

netcan 6y ago

My interpretation is more banal. The borrowings are more superficial. We know that language and style used to describe kings, emperors, and gods are very similar. The "I am Sargon, King of Kings" style occurs in political and religious writings all throughout the region... with roots going deep into the bronze age. Recurring imagery, writing style, motifs, titles, etc. are the norm. Lots of cultural elements are broadly found throughout the greater region. It's not surprising that they'd exist in any two traditions. All these traditions affected eachother. Take the Sphinx motif, Seraphim in temple judaism. It's a motif found very widely, over a very long period of time. The imagery is reused. The symbolism is reused. It's impossible to draw a clear path of progression though. On monotheism... I don't think monotheism is all that significant, per se. Whatever the origins of this were, canaanite cities and kings were clearly being closely associated to single deities. One king, one god. Maybe one temple. That was a typical mode. Is that monotheism? Why care, outside of theology? What is significant about monotheism is not monotheism. It's the "jealous god," the strict prohibitions on "foreign worship." This exclusionism is what made the religion so successful in the long term. We see this even in modern times. Religions that tolerate multiple belief systems give way to monotheism.

KMag 6y ago
FYI, the name for the jealous god among many gods is "monolatry". Historically, monolatry has a strong tendency to morph into monotheism, as it's much more stable belief system vs. having solid reasons not to worship other gods on the side. In the Bible, there's evidence that the earliest Judaism was monolatrist[0]. You can see a very long period of frustration the priests have with people mostly worshipping the most powerful god, but hedging their bets with side worship of Baal Zebul, Asherah, etc. despite Yahweh's jealousy. They had a much easier time discouraging the side worship once they started asserting those side gods didn't exist, rather than saying they were dramatically less powerful. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatry#In_ancient_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolatry#In_ancient_Israel
- netcan 6y ago
  So... to my perspective, monolatry is the point. Monotheism is a good enough approximation in practice though. Also, it's not the idea of monolatry or monotheism that matters... it's the development of a religious culture than is effective at banning other religions. This is what made monotheism what it is, historically.

ncmncm 6y ago

What I have seen of Akhenaten has him representing Aten, the Sun god. We have a great deal of material on him (or rather on what he chose to have carved) despite erasure from records, because his capital was abandoned immediately after his death.