New post "The Aten Bomb: Cultural Fission and Conquest in Exodus" on PF front page

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
https://postflaviana.org/exodus-aten-bomb/

The Exodus emerges as a covert operation, and an act of synthetic culture creation. The voice of God (through Moses) is saying that he wants the Israelites, the slaves of Pharaoh, to go into a new land and conquer it. But really, it is Pharaoh who is directing the Israelites, as his front line troops, to go and conquer the land of the Canaanites.

For now, it's also showing as the feature post at the top of the homepage.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
In Laurent Guyénot's From Yahweh to Zion, also discussed in the blog post, he also makes the typological comparison of Christianity's Father, Son, and Mother respectively to the earlier Egyptian Osiris, Horus, and Isis -- ignoring, of course, the orthodox obfuscation of replacing the Mother with the Holy Spirit or Ghost (and that the Church has since restored the Virgin Mary to a typologically correct divine status, via the Marian movement).

With the onset of Christianity, most of the Mosaic Laws of cultural inversion were revoked, thus making it easier for the various 'pagans' across the Roman empire to convert to a pseudo-monotheistic religion ironically built atop the canonic strata of the Jewish religion. As Ralph Ellis put it, Christianity is like "Judaism Lite", albeit that the behavioral nature of the heavenly father god must change his nature (and more) yet once more as well. In doing so, the previous synthetic cultural dialectic from the Mosaic Laws gets retained even with the reforms under the Rabbinic system imposed and controlled by imperial Rome and the later Church (see Carroll's Constantine's Sword and Shahak's Jewish History, Jewish Religion, chapter 4).

With this typological equation in mind, we can also further examine the following about Horus:
...
Joshua ben Nun and Seti I
Continuing on, the authors mention that Seti I, Ramesses I’s son and also equated with the Biblical Joshua ben Nun, wrote a declaration that corresponds to the Biblical account of the Exodus. From Dominique Valbelle’s Histoire de l’Etate Pharoanique (1998) pg. 288, as quoted in Secrets of the Exodus pp. 143-144:

(The text in brackets is the authors [the Sabbah brothers - rs] , the red highlighting is added.)

I speak of what I did [what I became] until I was the master of the two shores. I came from the womb [of my mother] like the Bull of Maat [Emet in Hebrew], impregnated by good counsel and teachings. When he [Ramesses I] was Re, I was with him as a star at his side […]. I [subjugated] the lands of the Fenekhu, I drove out for him the dissidents [the Yahud monotheists of Akhet-Aten] into the desert country. I organized his monarchy like Horus on the throne of Unennefer. I chose Maat for him everyday, and I bore him on my bosom […] in his name Mehenyt. I assembled his army and gave him a single heart [Lev in Hebrew: the army of the Levites]. I sought for him the subsistence of the double land and I placed my arm in the service of his close protection in the foreign lands the names of which were [still] unknown. I was a courageous hero in his presence in order that he might open his eyes upon my perfection.

There are many exegetes who claim that Jesus is a 'type' of Joshua, and in fact Jesus's name was was really 'Yeshua', the same as Joshua. Hence consistent with one reason that many Jews of the day considered that the expected messiah was supposed to be a military leader just like Joshua ben Nun (Seti I) was reputed to be.

So with the Sabbah brothers equating the Exodus characters to Set I and Ramesses I et al. and that Horus is invoked in connection to these pharaohs as well. The Sabbah brothers then note in brackets that the Hebrew word lev means 'heart'. As such, is it also possible to see the precursor to the latter day invocation of the Sacred Heart of the Jesuits, their iconography also being solar - like the Egyptians?
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Sarge, thanks for visiting.

This article has been in the works for some time. Much of it was posted here on the forum first. Joe and I have already discussed various aspects (including Ellis and the Sabbah Brothers book) on the old podcasts. What's completely new since then, would be the Guyenot material, the Tel Dan finds, and the Habiru discussion. Of course, we can go into everything in much greater detail in the post format.

Joe and I have given up our Revolution Radio platform, and I think we were often working at cross purposes in terms of our differing views on the modern relationship between Jews and Gentiles. So I don't see us getting together in the near future to do more podcasts. We do exchange email and phone conversations from time to time, and I think our relationship is still on an amicable basis.

Joe has been continuing to do weekly podcasts with Tim Kelly. Most of Tim's other guests are staunch Catholics, along with Tim himself. I've never heard them address Caesar's Messiah or its implications. I have no idea whether Tim Kelly would be comfortable talking about this sort of analysis, or whether he would feel that undermining orthodox views of the Old Testament might be undermining the New Testament as well.

Do you do Facebook? I've been thinking about posting a notification about this article to Joe's FB wall.

Or, you can email Joe at joeatwill@gmail.com.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I have taken a long route below to mention Joe and CM.
In Laurent Guyénot's From Yahweh to Zion, also discussed in the blog post, he also makes the typological comparison of Christianity's Father, Son, and Mother respectively to the earlier Egyptian Osiris, Horus, and Isis -- ignoring, of course, the orthodox obfuscation of replacing the Mother with the Holy Spirit or Ghost (and that the Church has since restored the Virgin Mary to a typologically correct divine status, via the Marian movement).
Weidner and Bridges, in their The Mysteries of the Great Cross of Hendaye, point out that it was first the Cistercian Saint Bernard, sponsor of the Knights Templar, who proposed the elevation (or restoration rather) of the Virgin to her 'proper' status, "back to the future". Some, like Catholic traditionalists, might see this as further evidence of Templar heresy - especially as in how W&B link Templar (and Cathar) foundations back to the earliest strata of Christianity in southern France. Foundations that appear to have links to the original non-Roman form(s) of Christianity, including gnostic ones. In this case, however, related aspects like the numerous 'black Madonnas' also seem to demonstrate even earlier origins in Egypt with Isis worship and such.

The apocalyptic subtext of the Hendaye Cross book, literal catastrophism, makes the 'Aten Bomb' blog post title perhaps even more apropos. Somewhat like the famous Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, W&B stated that a cosmic doomsday was immanent, based upon the esoteric interpretations they discuss. But we are now several literal years past their figurative 12:00 midnight. Jerry and I are researching whether W&B's clock, if not the BAS's, should really have been a 24 hour clock and not a 12 hour clock (and we're only really at 12:00 noon on the former). Or, if it's all a broken clock on a crock pot.

In any case, the entire background discussion in the Hendaye Cross book is invaluable for seeing that the esoteric underpinnings of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, 'paganism', mystery cults, the Vedic religions, even the Nazis etc. are all really focused generally on the exact same thing (perhaps sometimes corrupted). And that at the esoteric level, information regarding the big existential mystery of the cosmos would pass to and fro amongst them.

The Roman Church and even the mainline denominational Protestants took various forms of the Preterist interpretation towards the End Times, and Joe Atwill's CM is a secularist take on Preterism. Given that the Flavians, per such as John Bartram, Valliant and Fahy (the fish and anchor imperial Flavian and Christian simultaneous symbol), and others, appear likely to have been Chrestian (sic) adherents of esoteric mysteries focusing on such as Pythagorean aspects that made its way into exoteric canon, that the entire Preterist focus was at least partially a veil to obscure or distract the attention of most that the real End Times to worry about were yet to come. But exactly when? At 12:00 or 24:00? Or?

Whether a literal apocalypse is soon coming or not, we have problems, if only because there are so many convinced that there is one coming, and that they are the Chosen Elect - as opposed to everyone else. And in most all cases, the respective Chosen Elect of each (or some of each?) will best make it through the 'real' apocalypse's tribulation to the next phase, or age. How then does this compare to Darwin's "survival of the fittest"? But the exoteric churches tell everyone that all their respective true believers, in the superficial mythic fairy tales and such, are included within the Elect.

BTW, based upon their research W&B interestingly centered their 20 year time window for a cosmic/solar apocalypse on September, 2002. Their book first published in 1999. But maybe they didn't synchronize their clocks properly?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I just incidentally decided to rewatch Jacobovici's and Cameron's Exodus Decoded and was struck by how with Ahmose I and the Hyksos exodus Jacobovici was also really describing the Greek mythic 'legend' of Aegyptus versus Danaus, two feuding Egyptian royal princes where the latter took off for Greece, apparently becoming the 'actual' legendary people of Mycenae, later of Trojan War fame. And later, nearer the time of the Trojan War, the seafaring Danaoi also becoming of the Hebrew seafaring tribe of Dan of Samson fame, and also accredited with building the Ark of the Covenant, which looks identical to Egyptian arks.

I mentioned the documentary some time ago: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/was-akhenaten-moses-and-even-more.1810/page-2#post-5752

Unfortunately, Jacobovici seems to have gotten the meaning of Ahmose's name wrong, even as a pun, which story of feuding brothers would make the main thesis linkage very compelling indeed. Even with this problem, however, I think the argument about the Hyksos is generally very strong, and agrees with Josephus, BTW.

Jacobovici has another problem with the name of the god El. That El would have been used by many Semitic Hyksos is not an issue, except for the fact that El was the heavenly father god of the Canaanite pantheon, later merged with Yahweh (and almost 70 other gods). El was the head of a polytheistic pantheon, not a monotheistic god, unless one has a fairly sophisticated view of theology that is (such as all the multiple gods are merely manifestations of one real god). I seriously doubt that the slave in a Sinai turquoise mine was that sophisticated.

Serabit el-Khadim turquoise mine, a labour camp in the Sinai with a Semitic alphabetic inscription that reads "O El, save me from these mines." He argues that the use of "El" suggests that it was written before the alleged revelation at Sinai, supporting the thesis that Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt, although this inscription was undated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus_Decoded
The Wikipedia link then goes on to poorly attempt to debunk:

A Gold ornament excavated from one of the tombs in the Grave Circle is believed by Jacobovici to show the Ark of the Covenant against a background of the tabernacle altar. However, when you compare the photo of the gold ornament to the Biblical story of God telling Moses how to build the Ark, the descriptions differ in several ways. Jacobovici suggests that members of the Tribe of Dan may have emigrated to Mycenae after the Exodus. This, the documentary suggests, is why Homer refers to the buried at Mycenae as "Danaoi." The Greek myth states, however, that the Danaoi were descended from the Argives under the matriarch Danaë.

Houston, we have a problem. Below from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danaë

upload_2018-5-25_13-14-22.png
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
From the above genealogical diagram we also get a clue as to why the famous letter quoted by Jonathan in I Maccabees 12 is likely correct about the Jews being related to the Spartans, as I've discussed before.

Here's an excerpt from a long and interesting discussion of matters from Sparta to Moses involving 'Dan' peoples:

...
‘IN OUR BOOKS’: HECATAEUS AND THE SEPTUAGINT

‘Abominable sacrifice’ is one of many themes common to Israelite and Spartan stories – ancient stories weave in and out of each other in all sorts of baffling ways. The theme of flight from Egypt and vengeance on Egyptian pursuers is common to the stories of Moses and of Danaus. Gershon Hepner in his adventurous study of Israelite identity politics Legal Friction (2009, p. 518) countenances the idea of a link between Danaus and the Israelite tribe of Dan and even between the ‘Dinah’ of Genesis and the ‘Danaids’ of Greek myth. Samson sprang from the tribe of Dan: which is intriguing because the Spartiates, like Samson, favoured long hair.

It is still, for all that, inconceivable that a Spartan king in 265 would have proclaimed that he was of Abraham’s race: as Gruen argues, no one in Greece had heard of Abraham then. But even by 265 Hecataeus and others were sowing seed that would flower by 100 in the claims of I Macc.

Hecataeus claimed that Moses and Danaus were linked in religion, presumably noting and probably over-interpreting some common elements in their stories. Both, he says,were driven from Egypt in the same outbreak of religious hostility in time of plague. Moses, ‘a wise and courageous’ leader and lawgiver, took a mixed bag of foreigners in Egypt and from them forged (this story leaves no room for Abraham!) the new Jewish nation. ‘At the end of their laws’, says Hecataeus, seeming to show knowledge of Deuteronomy 29: 1, ‘it is even written that Moses spoke these things having heard them from God’. Bremmer notes this sign of authenticity and also notes that Hecataeus shows Moses calling for rigorous military training of Jewish youth in Spartan fashion. Berthelot (Hecataeus and Jewish Misanthropy 2008) notes the general prevalence of Spartan imagery in the Hecataeus-based picture of the Jews. Bremmer sees this as a way of accepting, while slightly regretting, the Jews’ stern separateness. But I think it was more than this and must be connected with Hecataeus’ – and Ptolemy’s – political agenda. ...

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/01/a-spartan-israel-from-finkelstein-to-hecataeus/
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
With the Danaoi being those who ultimately arrived in Mycenae as a result of the Hyksos exodus around 1500 BCE, we can now see a possible reason why the later Amenhotep III, father of Akhenaten, made a unique state visit to Mycenae, as recorded on the bases of his memorial statues and the discovery of unique faience plaques (with his cartouche) in most of the cities visited along the way and back. He was visiting his 'colonial' peeps, whether they were genetic kin or (most likely) not.

Similarly, Ralph Ellis discusses the related colonial expansion of these same peoples to Ireland and Scotland in his book Scota. However, if memory serves me correctly, he may have placed the feuding brothers, Aegyptus and Danaus, in the time of the late 18th Dynasty, with the pharaoh Ay being equated with Danaus. Ahmose I was the first of the 18th Dynasty.

After the Trojan War period, the collapse of the Late Bronze Age, we find a seafaring tribe of ... 'Hebrews', the last to be settled into their "Promised Land" running around Israel and Judea, the tribe of Dan. These Dan appear from the archaeology to be one and the same as the Mycenaen Danaoi, bolstered by the fact that the Danaoi disappeared completely from Mycenae at this very same time.
 

90210

New Member
Don't know if this is the time or place to post this but I've never arrived to a party on time or dressed appropriately...
I was wondering if there is any opinion here about the deleting of comments in public (youtube) and the line that needs to be crossed before one deletes comments as a "content creator"? I found my way to this thread by searching this site by the terms Tim Kelly.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi 90210,

I was wondering if there is any opinion here about the deleting of comments in public (youtube) and the line that needs to be crossed before one deletes comments as a "content creator"?
Thanks for the question. This has been very controversial here. At this site, as administrators & publishers, Rick & I feel that we have an obligation to maintain the standards in the site policy, found here:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/forum-rules-site-policies-and-disclaimer.1224/

We want to encourage spirited debate about our ideas. But if people just want to hurl insults and engage in snitch jacketing attacks, this is not the place. I'm afraid we've lost some participants from time to time because of these rules (it's been pretty quiet around here lately), but maybe that's for the better.

My answer for public sites like YouTube, Facebook & Twitter is different from what I'd say about a personal site like this one.

I feel that the big social media sites ought to be regulated as common carriers and public utilities. I don't think the owners of those sites should be making decisions about blocking or deleting user accounts. Thus, for example, I personally feel that Alex Jones has lost all credibility -- but I don't believe his channels should be deleted. On the contrary, as a matter of free speech, I think his right to use those sites should be defended.

But on the other hand, Congress hasn't passed any laws regulating the social media sites, and there haven't been any landmark legal cases that I know of. So for now, the social media sites aren't common carriers, they are more like publishers. And as such, they have the right & obligation to regulate the content that appears on the sites.

Regarding the comment sections for content creator's channels, both the sites and the content creators will be concerned about moderation. So I'd expect a line to be drawn regarding inappropriate comments. On the other hand, users do expect that the "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" counts at YouTube, or the "Star Ratings" at Amazon, will be accurately counted across all views.

In practice, everybody is going to have different ideas about where to draw the line. Have you had trouble getting comments posted at Tim & Joe's YouTube channel? Give it a try here?
 

90210

New Member
Hi 90210,



Thanks for the question. This has been very controversial here. At this site, as administrators & publishers, Rick & I feel that we have an obligation to maintain the standards in the site policy, found here:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/forum-rules-site-policies-and-disclaimer.1224/

We want to encourage spirited debate about our ideas. But if people just want to hurl insults and engage in snitch jacketing attacks, this is not the place. I'm afraid we've lost some participants from time to time because of these rules (it's been pretty quiet around here lately), but maybe that's for the better.

My answer for public sites like YouTube, Facebook & Twitter is different from what I'd say about a personal site like this one.

I feel that the big social media sites ought to be regulated as common carriers and public utilities. I don't think the owners of those sites should be making decisions about blocking or deleting user accounts. Thus, for example, I personally feel that Alex Jones has lost all credibility -- but I don't believe his channels should be deleted. On the contrary, as a matter of free speech, I think his right to use those sites should be defended.

But on the other hand, Congress hasn't passed any laws regulating the social media sites, and there haven't been any landmark legal cases that I know of. So for now, the social media sites aren't common carriers, they are more like publishers. And as such, they have the right & obligation to regulate the content that appears on the sites.

Regarding the comment sections for content creator's channels, both the sites and the content creators will be concerned about moderation. So I'd expect a line to be drawn regarding inappropriate comments. On the other hand, users do expect that the "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" counts at YouTube, or the "Star Ratings" at Amazon, will be accurately counted across all views.

In practice, everybody is going to have different ideas about where to draw the line. Have you had trouble getting comments posted at Tim & Joe's YouTube channel? Give it a try here?
It seems I did violate some rules. I did call Tim Kelly a goat. I will admit my comment was emotion fueled from beginning to end. I guess it's part of my personality that conflicts with the "Truther-Industrial Complex's" hypocritical motto of conduct over creed. I go a different direction and lead with creed but I also don't sell my "research" I just give it away to whoever is on the topic I have combed through. I can and will post my comment here if there is a curiosity but again admit to breaking the rules. There is nothing vulgar except my opinion of their generalizations and language.

To be frank though, I have had enough of the poor language choices the T.I.C. insists on using with no qualifications. In this case, I posted a "rant" about the repeated generalization of the word "Jew" that went on between E. Michael Jones and T. Kelly. It is making me sick to be honest. I am slowly starting to see a lot of people I watched or even admired are occultly creating a schism between people whether they realize it or not by qualifying a 'conspiracy' topic with a general race or religious label. I guess I chose to "attack" Kelly with the words I came up with because in my mind, it is far less "dangerous" and provocative than saying "the Jew's are behind gay marriage", "the Jews weaponized the negro", and "some high yellar" in reference to a light skinned black person I assume. Either way I did break the rules and will refine my rebuttals. I think it would be so much clearer and honest to say a statement like "Frankfurt School Psychoanalysts" instead of Frankfurt School Jew's" or "Jew's from the Frankfurt School". Anyway, I might hang out here for a bit. This might be a "level up" from the T.I.C. and maybe I can learn something instead of hate something.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Uhmm, 90210, where did you post on this forum about Tim Kelly? I searched for what you described. Are you confused about a different site?

In any case, Jerry and I like to distinguish ourselves from most other alternative whatever sites by our different treatment of the Jewish issue. While we certainly don't deny that the Jewish / goy issue is a near constant thread running through the center of Western civilization, we believe that the dialectic started that way by design. And, that if one bothers to look close enough that one might better focus on a different group of people altogether. In this manner people who self-identify as Jews might better be seen as a veiling front for this other group. Consistent with this is the notion that 90 to 95% of today's Jews are Ashkenazi and thus in actuality not even Semitic via the genealogies in Genesis.

Sardonic now that Syrians have been forced by war to immigrate into Europe, and Central Americans seek asylum in the USA fleeing a criminal gang created in Los Angeles, CA. Geopolitics deja vu?

As I have discussed before, the first verse of Hosea, he tells us that he had to marry the metaphorical whore, Gomer (Gomer is the father of Ashkenaz, and does not descend from Shem), in order to repopulate the land (after various 'Hebrews' had been forced to immigrate, part of the so-called Lost 10 Tribes). And, as I have related in my blog and forum posts, Israel Shahak (Jewish History, Jewish Religion) and James Carroll (Constantine's Sword) relate how the Jews were made to be subservient to the Roman pope (and actually Caesar before that), just like Judah (the patriarch of the Jews) was made to pay obeisance to Joseph (and Pharaoh) via Ephraim in Genesis. The Roman emperors grafted themselves onto the line of the pharaohs, just like they did with Jesus (the graft in Romans 11).

And so now the culture war is aimed upon Liberalism, of which the Jews were 'emancipated' in the 19th century, and thus enabled to take the scapegoat blame of the Jew haters, paid haters or otherwise. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis; the meme system moves on from cyclical phase to phase - before and after Hegel discussed his Dialectics.

The Sabbah brothers, French rabbis, claim that the Yahud were the personal priesthood of Amenhotep III (father of Akhenaton), and if true imagine that the entire identity construct of being a Jew might be an synthetic artifice, even prefiguring the 'affair' of Hosea and Gomer. In this sense, just as there was and is no Christian ethnicity (ignoring those people in the Christian Identity movement I guess). In a similar light, even the term Gentile is perhaps trolling us, as it really refers to 'elites', not to ethnicity. It has the same root as the elite terms: gentil, gentleman, and gentry (the class).

Interesting avatar BTW.
 

90210

New Member
where did you post on this forum about Tim Kelly?

I did not post on this forum about TK, I just came over here knowing Joe's affiliation with both sites. I posted comments on the most recent TK interview with E. Michael Jones and according to friends I'm shadow banned. I mentioned I violated rules but I was applying Mr. Russell's 'reasonable rules' to the youtube comments on the interview, so I dropped my issue.
I did a search (Tim Kelly) on this site and found this thread and noticed Mr. Russell's comments on the Jewish 'issue' with Joe so I thought I would post and ask.
My issue with TK is the volleying of the word "Jew" in a way that really got my goat.

I have read quite a few things here and have stayed quiet for the most part, but I feel you guys have some class or at least a clue that the umbrella language does no good in the process of learning.

I am very curious about Jewish history and have been reading Encyclopedia Judaica (1973? hardcopies) to get a perspective from 'them'.

My current personal studies are focused on the first 150 years of early American Theology ("Bacon's Atlantis") with primary focus on Protestants because nobody picks on them enough. I have just started a blog that is focusing on genealogy and I'm not sure where it will lead. I just have a pile of info and feel like posting it. My info is all citation and no opinion literally. I photograph many 'articles' from reference books from many college libraries, and now will start posting in a blog to leave a trail to where ever this goes. So far I am pretty astounded but I've never been properly educated and technically self taught, so this might not mean anything to anybody who has a brain.

The avatar is a Gammadion from... https://archive.org/details/migrationsymbol00alvgoog Eugene Goblet, Quatro Coro/Mason. It is meant to be provocative and not vulgar. Our of respect I will change if it offends. I have no problem with that.
upload_2018-8-23_21-34-7.png
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Thanks for responding 90210. Don't forget you can place a link to your blog in your profile page.

My current personal studies are focused on the first 150 years of early American Theology ("Bacon's Atlantis") with primary focus on Protestants because nobody picks on them enough.
Yes, there is a lot of misunderstanding in the USA regarding the different varieties of Protestants and their respective theologies, even among Protestants themselves.

No problems with your avatar, and I did think it evoked the swastika. The second 'sinister' one in the graphic is also interesting in that it incorporates clearly Celtic patterns within the circles. There is a classic Greek design of interlinked, serial swastikas, of which I saw presented at UCLA some years ago as being a bas relief motif once present on the Jerusalem Temple Mount.

And that these two designs are from Scotland, you might be interested in the book When Scotland Was Jewish. Albeit 'they' say that Scota was an Egyptian princess. :rolleyes:
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Aeon has posted an essay by Old Testament scholar, James K. Hoffmeier, about the development of Atenism, including the historical context in the centuries before it. Hoffmeier et al. have written a provocatively titled book, Genesis: History, Fiction, Or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (2015), that I have yet to read.

Excerpts below from the complete essay at https://aeon.co/essays/why-did-an-ancient-egyptian-king-erase-all-gods-but-aten

More than 3,000 years ago, ancient Egypt, with its myriad gods and goddesses, saw the founding of two monotheistic religions within a century of each other. One is associated with Moses, the Bible and ancient Israel’s faith, which is the foundation of Judaism and Christianity. The other burst on to the scene around 1350 BCE, flourished for a moment, and was then eclipsed when its founder died in 1336 BCE. We call the religion Atenism. Where did it come from? And why didn’t the world’s first monotheism last?
In the 4th millennium BCE, there were two distinct cultures in Egypt: one in the Delta (north) region, the other in the south. This geographical and political dualism had its counterpart in religion. In the north, the most powerful god in the Egyptian pantheon was Re, the sun god. His cult centre was in a suburb of present-day Cairo, still known by the ancient Greek name Heliopolis, ‘City of the Sun’, and his principal icon was a pyramid-shaped stone called the benben. The pyramids and obelisks still familiar today owe their shape and symbolic significance to this ancient solar image. By his agency, Re created other gods, over which he was chief, as well as humans. Re’s son was Horus the sky-god, represented as a falcon, and the Pharaohs were the incarnation of Horus. So their title was ‘Son of Re’.
Meanwhile, in the southern town of Thebes (modern Luxor), the god Amen emerged as the most powerful religious force. As his name suggests in ancient Egyptian, Amen is the ‘hidden one’ and is often depicted in human form with blue skin, representing the blue sky or atmosphere. Amen’s principal cult centre was Karnak Temple in Thebes. Around 2000 BCE, then, there were two dominant deities in Egypt: Re, who reigned in the north, and Amen, who ruled the south.

Of course, we can only accord the 'Mosaic' religion to be as attested from the Old Testament, since there is precious little archaeological evidence of it existing until much later, likely until the period around the time of the first Persian emperor, Cyrus, accorded to be a Jewish savior, or messiah.

...​
The Karnak complex expanded significantly between 1500 and 1350 BCE when the 18th-dynasty monarchs ruled. While Memphis remained the political capital, Thebes was considered the imperial capital. From Karnak, divine oracles directed the kings to conquer neighbouring lands, and they duly obliged. Egypt’s empire stretched north and east to beyond even the Euphrates River, and in the south, Nubia, the northern half of Sudan, was colonised. Tribute and booty poured into Egypt during this century and a half, with Karnak Temple and its powerful priesthood the major recipients. There is no greater testimony to the prosperity of this era than the colossal building projects of Amenhotep III (1390-1353 BCE) at Karnak and Luxor Temples, largely in the name of Amen-Re. Egypt and its god Amen-Re had reached the zenith of power. But no one could have foreseen how quickly things would change with the death of Amenhotep III.​

Elsewhere I have discussed that it was Amenhotep III who first declared himself to be an incarnated god while living, and that he launched a unique state visit to Mycenae, as recorded both on his temple statuary bases and by unique faience memorial plaques found in the cities along the way. A few centuries later, the Mycenaeans would be at the center of the denouement of the Bronze Age, marked narratively, at least, by the Trojan War. The pretext of the war had to do with a certain egg-born Helen. Heliopolis > Helen? In any case, the tales of Homer centered about this war became the literal canonic bible of the later Greco-Roman period, itself superceded by Christianity, where Paul rides to Rome on the ship, Castor and Pollux, the divine, savior, brothers of the divine Helen.

Interesting, as well, in regard to this topic was the brilliant analysis by Immanuel Velikovsky that Akhenaton was the real character behind the classic Greek story of Oedipus Rex. It begs the question as to why such Greeks would focus on such a story and disguise its origins. And we must also consider here the relationship of the Greek Danaoi or Danaans and their relationship to the Hebrew tribe of Dan. The latter of which the Nazarite 'judge', Samson, was descended from. Samson's reign of chaos would soon lead to the period of kingship in Judea and Israel, at least according to the canonic narrative. And the narrative extent of the domains of Solomon can only be matched by the accounts of Egyptian pharaohs.

...
Based on an inscription dated to regnal year 1 of Amenhotep IV at the sandstone quarry of Gebel el-Silsileh (south of Luxor), we learn that here the new king began his first building project. It records the hewing out of a large benben stone for ‘Re-Horakhty who rejoices in his horizon in his name of Shu which (or who) is in the Aten in Karnak’. This lengthy name seems to be a theological creed, and is often called the ‘didactic name’ of Aten. No earlier form of the sun-god employed such a lengthy name. So this is new.
Little is known about this temple as it was destroyed after the king’s death, and the blocks reused to build other edifices in the area. Only a handful of decorated and inscribed blocks have survived, and some remain partially visible in the 10th Pylon or gateway at Karnak. One of these blocks, which now graces the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, shows the new deity: ‘Re-Horakhty who rejoices in his horizon in his name of Shu which is in the Aten’. Only the head of the falcon is preserved. A large sun-disc sits on its head, which has a cobra wrapped around the disc with its head flaring up just above the falcon’s beak. This initial representation of the sun-god looks just like the solar deity, Re-Horakhty. On the right side of the scene, the king himself is depicted and above him the lower portion of a sun-disc is preserved. It has cobras on both sides, and hanging from their necks is an ankh-sign, the so-called key of life. Three more ankhs are connected to the underside of the Sun.
Something changed, and the king built at least four temples to Aten
Another block believed to be from this same temple preserves only a portion of a larger scene. It too contains the creedal name, but it depicts the image of the god Shu, whose name occurs in the creedal formula, along with his wife, Tefnut. Here, she is called ‘the father of the gods’, and the first god created by Atum is associated with atmospheric or cosmic light. It is clear from this early temple block that the introduction of this new form of the sun-god did not preclude mentioning primordial deities such as Shu and Tefnut. That means that Amenhotep had no aversion to ‘the gods’: at this stage, he could not even be called a henotheist, or one who worships one deity without rejecting the existence of others.

This last sentence parallels the Biblical account, where the Bible has the patriarchs, and God himself, acknowledging the existence of the other gods, but that the jealous 'God' is to be adhered to solely.

...
The exclusivity of Aten and the campaign to exterminate Amen and other deities is proof positive of a movement from polytheism to monotheism. If doubt remains that Akhenaten was a monotheist, consider some elegant and touching lines in The Great Hymn to the Aten, inscribed on the wall of the tomb of the high official named Aye at Amarna:
O sole god beside who there is none …
You create the earth according to your desire, you alone:
People, all large and small animals, all things which are on earth, which walk on legs,
Which rise up and fly with their wings.
The foreign lands of Syria and Nubia, (and) the land of Egypt …
The lord of every land who rises for them, the Aten of daytime, whose awesomeness is great.
(Now concerning) all distant countries, you make their life …
(O you) who gives life to the son in his mother’s womb, and calms him by stopping his tears;
Nurse in the womb, who gives breath to enliven all he makes …
The themes of universalism, divine oneness, the exclusivity of Aten and his tender care for all creation drive home the point that ‘there is none’ beside Aten. This is a monotheistic statement not unlike the Islamic confession ‘there is no god but God’. And on the theme of divine oneness, the Jewish Shema comes to mind: ‘Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.’ The sun-god was a universal deity: wherever one went in the world, the Sun appears.
Atenism was a monotheistic experiment. But what instigated such a radical shift from the polytheistic orthodoxy that had flourished in Egypt for millennia, and what led to the demotion of Amen-Re from his preeminent status, a position he had held for centuries? Here, there is little agreement among Egyptologists. There are those who think that this religious move was designed to wrest power from the Amen priesthood’s dominance that challenged the crown itself. Simply put, it was a political move. But this view does not adequately consider Akhenaten’s genuine devotion to Aten as reflected in the incredible temples dedicated to him, not to mention the intimacy expressed towards Aten in the hymns.
Others consider Atenism to be simply the climax of an evolution that had been underway for more than a century, in which Re had been moving towards universal status. This interpretation, however, does not take into account the programme of iconoclasm towards Amen and other deities, and the disappearance of traditional images of the sun-god (human form, falcon head, pyramid images, etc). One could advance Aten without eradicating Amen in a polytheistic system.
...
Akhenaten also uses the same language of discovery to explain how he found the land where he would establish the new city, Akhet-Aten. The aforementioned boundary inscription records Akhenaten’s words when travelling through the area that would become his new capital:
Look, Aten! The Aten wishes to have [something] made for him as a monument … (namely) Akhet-Aten … It is Aten, my father, [who advised me] concerning it so it could be made for him as Akhet-Aten.
Later in the same inscription, the king again repeats the line: ‘It is my father Aten who advised me concerning it.’ These texts point to an initial phenomenological event in which the king discovered the new form of the sun-god and then, through a later revelation, Aten disclosed where his Holy See should be built.
With the above, we should ponder that Amenhotep III had previously declared himself to be a living god, and there is controversy that Akhenaton had shared a coregency with his father. Here, that the Father (as god) had indeed even visited Amarna. In this light we can also see that Amarna was built in the middle of 'nowhere', midway between Thebes and the delta. It is our contention that the later construction of the Biblical Promised Land was on this general principle, only that Canaan had to be 'cleansed' of its prior beliefs by both conversions and forced migrations. The latter program led by the remnants of the first Experiment in monotheism. Atenism failed because its implementation was too rapid, where peoples take generations to alter enough of their mother 'culture'.
...
With Atenism, the evolution from polytheism to monotheism occurred rapidly, in just a few years
Historians of religion over the past 150 years thought that such a shift to monotheism must have been a gradual development taking place over millennia. Just like every field of learning in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the academic study of religion was shaped by evolutionary philosophy, an extension of Darwinian thought. From this perspective, religion began in the hoary past from animism, where everything – trees, rivers, rocks, etc – was possessed by spirits; followed by totemism; then polytheism; henotheism; culminating finally in monotheism. This linear development took thousands of years, it is claimed, moving from simple to complex forms. Some thinkers maintain that monotheism was achieved in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE for the ancient Jews, a development mirrored among Greek philosophers, in Zoroastrianism and other Asian religions during the same general period. But with Atenism, as the evidence suggests, the evolution from polytheism to monotheism occurred rapidly, in just a few years, contrary to the traditional understanding that monotheism appeared eight centuries later.
...
Hoffmeier goes on to discuss why he rejects a linkage between Atenism and Judaism, but we think that there is indeed sufficient evidence to assert that they are linked.
 
Top