Theran Theories

I agree wholeheartedly, Petty. Love those books. Some of even the most outlandish stuff may turn out to be true. I like Rohl's and James's efforts to tackle the chronology of ancient history. They disgaree with each other on chronology, but are closer to each other than they are to the Establishment theories on chronology. Throughout the Mediterranean world and Mesopotamia stuff is dug up often in the wrong archeological strata (relating to temporal contexts) according to the Established chronology. I can't get enough of this kind of stuff as I said.

As to identifying Akhenaten, the jury's out, but I gotta say, it makes a lot of sense. Maybe Tiye (his mother) was buried with him, which explains the decomposed cabinet-thingee-shrine thing they found. Maybe moved to be with her husband at some stage by later haters of Akhenaten. Tutankhamen's tomb wasn't raided and probably had some of Akhenaten's stuff in it. Put there by Ay???

Smenkhare might be Nefertiti. Removed at same time as Tiye?

A good deal of Tutankhamun's stuff was raided from Atenakens tomb- including the famous throne with the Aten disc on it. It depicts Akenaten and Neferitti beneath the Aten, in the style of artwork the Aten period is noted for-I like to think of it as 'hello' magazine art. Its basically celebrity photoshoot stuff. Its all pictures of the royal couple relaxing at home, playing with the children, and all very naturally depicted, completely unlike any other style of Egyptian art;

[img][/img]

In fact his tomb is full of Aten stuff. Its odd therfore that not only does he seem to have been buried when the Aten worship was still ongoing but it was deliberetly left undesicrated by the anti-atenists when the cull came. And as that happend under Horemheb within 10-20 years at most of Tutankhamun being interred they must have known where his tomb was. So for whatever reason they choose to leave it alone.

Philips speculates that the Egyptians believed the goddess Sekhmet had inhabited the Pharoahs, rather than Re, and that the body in tomb 55, buried with a double magical seal on the door was thought to be 'possessed' by Sekhmet. Tutankamuns tomb, directly opposite it is therefore part of the magic to keep her in there, as the Pharoah who returned to traditional worship of the gods he would contain the spirit of Re, father of the goddess and in Egyptian belief the only one who can control her. So they couldn't risk desicrating Tutankhamun's tomb in case it let her out.
Is an interesting idea. The fact that it appears to be Akenaten in tomb 55 only serves to bolster the idea, as the Pharoah who really went with the Aten thing and moved the entire apparatus of government to the middle of the desert he was perhaps seen as the obvious one to have been possessed by the destructive, human hating Sekhmet.

Tutankhamun was most likely buried by Ay who succedded him, and as Ay had been a part of the whole Aten thing from the beginning it explains the Aten artifacts there-although not why he raided them from his old Pharoah and seeming friend Akenatens tomb, nor why when Horemheb succeded Ay, a mere four years after Ay became Pharoah, and began his anti-aten cull he left Tutankhamun alone (unless the above theory is correct of course).

edited add- been thinking about this possessed by Sekhmet theory and the way tomb 55 (Akenatens tomb) was treated. It appears that he first interred as normal and with all the usual ceremony, and if the standard of stuff from his tomb that ended up in Tutankhamuns tomb is anything to go by he was buried with a lot of grave goods. Then when Tutankhamun dies Ay reopens Akenatens tomb and plunders it for grave goods for Tutankamun's tomb. After that when Horemheb finally gets to be Pharoah he destroys all the Aten related stuff, Ay's tomb for example is tron aprt inside, wall carvings are smashed, names are scored out, the canoptic jars smashed and the mummy torn to literal shreds.
It seems Horemheb did reopen Akenatens tomb to do the same. Desecration was started but never finished. Not only that there is eveidence the perpretrators left in a hurry-some expensive in their day tools were left behind, within hands reach of the entrance. But whoever owned them was not willing to so much as stick their hand in to get them once the Priests had put the magic seals on the door. The mummy of Akenaten was also not destroyed, and yet they did open up the sarcophagus becasue one of Akenatens death masks was used on Tutankhamuns mummy. Which is all very strange. And on top of that there is the mystery of why Akenatens mummy is posed like a woman and why the canoptic jars also are for a women.

However if Philips is right it occured to me there might be some sort of answer to some of it. If Horemheb was conviniced by the Priests that Sekmet resided in the mummy he might have been persuaded to abandon his desicration of that tomb and instead thebody was reinterred as a women (Sekhmet being a Goddess) and the internal organs switched into female canoptic jars in a further attempt to placate her. But then something seems to have happened to spook the workers, everyone gets out in a hurry, the Priests put spells on the entrance and a double, rather than a single wall is erected as a seal.
The grave goods already removed are now seen as belonging to Sekhmet, what what to do with them? To dangerous to kee about and to risky you might offend her by destroying them. So they alone of the Aten stuff get saved, they get put in TutanKhamuns tomb, not by Ay at the original interment but by Horemheb. Convinced by the Priests Tutankhum is needed to keep watch over the evil in tomb 55 and safe inthe knowledge once the records are wiped noone will ever know Tutankhamun existed, so the aritfacts are as good as destroyed.

Pure speculation I kow, but thats the fun isn;t it, speculating off the available evidence?

I've read so many books on the subject that I can't always remember who's theory is who's, but there is one that says the 19th Dynasty did not follow immediately on from the 18th (Velikowski???). Another one at least suggests that it was not until the 19th Dynasty (immediately following on from Horemheb) that the desecration of Akhenaten's memory really got into gear. After all, Tutankhamen and Ay had returned worship to it's rightful place without totally removing Atenism. I guess the Aten returned to it's place in general religious belief. Horemheb may have been satisfied with this. The later Ramesides not so. They also probably wanted to beef up their own right to rule by poo-poohing the previous dynasty - Horemheb was really an in-between pharoah. I've read so much but am now so sketchy on the subject. The vicissitudes of aging. Fun - yes.

As to Akhenaten borrowing from Moses, can't see it. The other way around. The Israelites in Egypt may have been influenced by the ruling culture of the time. I think there was a time of religious revivalism and development right throughout the 18th Dynasty, and the Habiru were highly influenced by the changing times, no doubt making some contribution to the matrix of change.

I think the Old Testament hints strongly that Moses was returing to worship the God of his fathers, who had been known by a different name, El, derived from a Summerian God. In early Summeria which was a series of city states each city had a ziggarut housing that cities God. I think Abraham was a Priest or other such high noble of the Temple to El in his city, and for some reason he and his immediate family and followers left, theres a slight hint they were driven out. Eventualy they found there way to Egypt, by the time of Joseph. Somewhere between this time and Moses time there numbers swell but they take up worship of the local Egyptian dieties. Moses, by all accounts is a good Egyptian citizen, commits a crime and runs away, he meets a group of people who seem to be descendants of Abraham who never went into Egypt. They still hold the religion of long ago. A monotheistic religion centred on El. This is the God of his fathers the bible speaks of. Moses takes this new religion on with the zest of a zealot and he and his brother begin to preach it. If Philips is right and Moses is the Crown prince then his word would carry weight. But even if he is not the Moses of the Bible story, and especially the group he meets in the desert would have been practicising a form of monotheism earlier than Akenaten. I would imagine there might have been a coming together, as seems to happen n human affairs, of timing, mood, and ideas which cause huge change.

I think the Old Testament is a patchwork of stories. It is not a unified "history" in any way. The Egyptian histories are a better template for examining ancient history than the OT can be. What you say about the Monotheism of the Israelites is a bit off the straight road, because I doubt monotheism as the religion of all but a few sectarians really got into gear until the time of the Priestly writer. The Priestly writer looking back into "ancient" history chose (and chopped) stories to pleased his religious viewpoint.

The OE was mostly likely set down during the second captivity in Babylon. But much of it fits very well with the known historical record, puttiing aside exagerrations of ages and the like. As an outline of events from one particular groups perspective its not that far off. And its to easy to cherry pick bits that fit and discard others, why should some bits contain more historical truth than others? I am wary of discarding sections simply because I personnaly don't agree with them.

The date for when monotheism reared its head is hard to say, no matter what history you draw on. For myself I see the the whole thing as starting with Summeria and the city states. There you had a Council of Gods, and each one represented a city- the uses of such a idea in terms of social structuring and rule, especially as these were the first known cities, is obvious. With each God residing in a palace attended to as if they were actually there the Council would no doubt have been made up of their earthly representives, the important people of each city.

According to the OE Abraham left his city and took his God with him. If you had to travel back then you had two choices regards your God. Either you went to a shrine of whatever local God there was when you got there and made offerings for their protection during your stay, or alternatively you took your god with you in the form of a stone figurine contained in an ark. Abraham I reckon took his in an ark.
People it seems had a duel releationship with Gods, one on one with their own God they had a monotheistic approach, but their God was part of a group of Gods that were acknowledged by all. I don't think its a stretch that Abraham, his entrouge and his descendants slowly came to rely more and more on their single personal God, El. And there is a lengthy period of time between the group which went with Joseph and became part of the Hyksos and eventually part of the ruling elite and the group that stayed in the wilderness, and Moses's day when he flees Egypt and meets the descendants in the Wilderness. Plenty of time for this isolated group to have defined something closer to a monotheism from the religion brought by Abraham. If anyone developed the groundwork for the Jewish religion it is I think this unsung group who kept the religion of Abrham, of Moses' fathers, alive all those years whilst the descandants of Joseph had become entirely Egyptianised.
To begin with El was clearly not alone, I think there must have been a minimum of three deities in the early days. God, his consort and the serpent (Summerian- El, Ninnursug, Enki) as all three make it into Genesis (El as God, Ninnursug as Eve- they share the same title 'Mother of all Living' and Enki as the serpent, Enki's symbol was the serpent representing wisdom).
There is decent evidence from the excavation of very early hebrew dwellings that there was a female consort to God quite late into the development of Judiasm. So how monotheistic was the religion of Moses?
As I say I think it was probably something like a trinity in his day. But then although Aten worship is considered monotheistic there is no definite evidence it was. Akenaten banned the worship of other Gods and the association of the Aten with any of them, but whether he went as far as declaring all the other gods were false is another matter, and the evidence from household dwellings is that the average person at least stuck to what they knew and kept their charms, amulets and personnal shrines to other gods.
So its up for debate if either Moses beliefs or Akenatens were true monotheisms, or just the elevation of one god to be supreme among all others. Judiasm survived so eventually got the time to refine its beliefs down to a single diety, Aten worship was short lived by comparison.
Perhaps it was just 'Monotheism time'. In the same way it was 'steam train time' or 'telephone time' in the modern age- there was just enough ideas fermenting away and bubbling up in society that different people were drawn towards the same conclusions.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The OE was mostly likely set down during the second captivity in Babylon. But much of it fits very well with the known historical record, puttiing aside exagerrations of ages and the like. As an outline of events from one particular groups perspective its not that far off. And its to easy to cherry pick bits that fit and discard others, why should some bits contain more historical truth than others? I am wary of discarding sections simply because I personnaly don't agree with them.

The date for when monotheism reared its head is hard to say, no matter what history you draw on. For myself I see the the whole thing as starting with Summeria and the city states. There you had a Council of Gods, and each one represented a city- the uses of such a idea in terms of social structuring and rule, especially as these were the first known cities, is obvious. With each God residing in a palace attended to as if they were actually there the Council would no doubt have been made up of their earthly representives, the important people of each city.

According to the OE Abraham left his city and took his God with him. If you had to travel back then you had two choices regards your God. Either you went to a shrine of whatever local God there was when you got there and made offerings for their protection during your stay, or alternatively you took your god with you in the form of a stone figurine contained in an ark. Abraham I reckon took his in an ark.
People it seems had a duel releationship with Gods, one on one with their own God they had a monotheistic approach, but their God was part of a group of Gods that were acknowledged by all. I don't think its a stretch that Abraham, his entrouge and his descendants slowly came to rely more and more on their single personal God, El. And there is a lengthy period of time between the group which went with Joseph and became part of the Hyksos and eventually part of the ruling elite and the group that stayed in the wilderness, and Moses's day when he flees Egypt and meets the descendants in the Wilderness. Plenty of time for this isolated group to have defined something closer to a monotheism from the religion brought by Abraham. If anyone developed the groundwork for the Jewish religion it is I think this unsung group who kept the religion of Abrham, of Moses' fathers, alive all those years whilst the descandants of Joseph had become entirely Egyptianised.
To begin with El was clearly not alone, I think there must have been a minimum of three deities in the early days. God, his consort and the serpent (Summerian- El, Ninnursug, Enki) as all three make it into Genesis (El as God, Ninnursug as Eve- they share the same title 'Mother of all Living' and Enki as the serpent, Enki's symbol was the serpent representing wisdom).
There is decent evidence from the excavation of very early hebrew dwellings that there was a female consort to God quite late into the development of Judiasm. So how monotheistic was the religion of Moses?
As I say I think it was probably something like a trinity in his day. But then although Aten worship is considered monotheistic there is no definite evidence it was. Akenaten banned the worship of other Gods and the association of the Aten with any of them, but whether he went as far as declaring all the other gods were false is another matter, and the evidence from household dwellings is that the average person at least stuck to what they knew and kept their charms, amulets and personnal shrines to other gods.
So its up for debate if either Moses beliefs or Akenatens were true monotheisms, or just the elevation of one god to be supreme among all others. Judiasm survived so eventually got the time to refine its beliefs down to a single diety, Aten worship was short lived by comparison.
Perhaps it was just 'Monotheism time'. In the same way it was 'steam train time' or 'telephone time' in the modern age- there was just enough ideas fermenting away and bubbling up in society that different people were drawn towards the same conclusions.

Let's face it, the Old Testament religion is not really any more Monotheistic than Pagan religions. What are angels but Gods lower in the hierarchy? I think the Akhenaten stuff is made a bit too much of, not discounting his Version/Practice of Religion had an impact at the time because he built a city around his version of God and Gods. Folk have always had their particular view of God - most have had a Head God.

True. But most did not refine their religion down to just the Head God (partly becasue it raised a lot of awkard questions usually about sex if you have no female force represented). That was a unique idea. One with huge political implications as a tolitarian regime of otherworldness is much more usueful than a gaggle of Gods all representing different ideals. Its much easier to enforce rules made by a single omnipotent being that try to mediate a Council of Gods and all they represent.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:True. But most did not refine their religion down to just the Head God (partly becasue it raised a lot of awkard questions usually about sex if you have no female force represented). That was a unique idea. One with huge political implications as a tolitarian regime of otherworldness is much more usueful than a gaggle of Gods all representing different ideals. Its much easier to enforce rules made by a single omnipotent being that try to mediate a Council of Gods and all they represent.

Marduk was Chief God. How does he differ from Jehovah?

I dont think he does really. As I said before much as the 1800's were 'steam enging time' the late Bronze Age seems to have been One God time. There are several pantheons of this time period where one god or another is promoted through the ranks to become the Supreme Deity. This can quite clearly be traced in conjunction with the fall and rise of varies city states and the promotion of their own God with success and the falling away of their God with failure. It is no coincidence that Marduk was the patron God of Babylon and only become the Supreme God after Babylon rose to dominance.
The advantages politically of one god were no doubt becoming clear to the ruling classes which probably explains this refining of religion to single entities to focus the state on.
The main difference with Jehovah is He survived where the others did not. Thats the problem with the process, eventually to quote Highlander "There can be only one."

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I dont think he does really. As I said before much as the 1800's were 'steam enging time' the late Bronze Age seems to have been One God time. There are several pantheons of this time period where one god or another is promoted through the ranks to become the Supreme Deity. This can quite clearly be traced in conjunction with the fall and rise of varies city states and the promotion of their own God with success and the falling away of their God with failure. It is no coincidence that Marduk was the patron God of Babylon and only become the Supreme God after Babylon rose to dominance.
The advantages politically of one god were no doubt becoming clear to the ruling classes which probably explains this refining of religion to single entities to focus the state on.
The main difference with Jehovah is He survived where the others did not. Thats the problem with the process, eventually to quote Highlander "There can be only one."

Th Jews (over time) stole much that they wanted from the lore of other Gods and kept an ever expanding scribal record. That's pretty much why "Jehovah" the One God seems so dominant, and so "monotheistic, in my opinion. However, even Jehovah is not quite as "monotheistic" in the OT as the casual observer might think. ("Wisdom", on one view, was his Missus, so Duality exists too, it would seem). In the NT Jehovah becomes Three. Theologists can explain this away as much as they like, Three is NOT One. No more One than the Hindu Pantheon being scions of their One God, or Allah and his Angels.

As I mentioned there are clear theoligical problems when you only have 1 God. Sex becomes harder to explain as does the other question under discussion, the existence of evil and bad thigs happening. In order to overcome those problems varies devious means have been dreamed up, including the Trinity and the Devil.
Its a classic case of on the one hand a single deity conveys huge power to those who represent it, and on the other it is harder to maintian without people spotting the obvious flaws. Everything theoligically inbetween has in one way or another been wrestling with this dilemna.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:As I mentioned there are clear theoligical problems when you only have 1 God. Sex becomes harder to explain as does the other question under discussion, the existence of evil and bad thigs happening. In order to overcome those problems varies devious means have been dreamed up, including the Trinity and the Devil.
Its a classic case of on the one hand a single deity conveys huge power to those who represent it, and on the other it is harder to maintian without people spotting the obvious flaws. Everything theoligically inbetween has in one way or another been wrestling with this dilemna.

God was a hermaphrodite, surely, or did he poo us into existence?

i think both options have been considered at one point or another!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:i think both options have been considered at one point or another!

I prefer the God with a Missus idea. No, actually, the Ishtar with a hubby idea works even better for me. I feel women are the centre of everything. The Ancients who believed that are right in my opinion. The Male Only God is a creepy idea. Somehow homosexual (but not in a good way).

Mmm... Is God an hermaphrodite?

Please yourself!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Please yourself!

Weak effort, this one -- but it is a lot of threads to spam, I guess...

Indeed, all the spam is getting quite crazy! I thought I had finished reading all the new posts and there was a whole nother batch waiting.

Spam! I never spam. I randomly contribute.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Spam! I never spam. I randomly contribute.

Oh you "rand" not "spam"!

Thats a 'y' short of the truth!

Going for a Spam-A-Thon, Orwell? It feels like they're a lost art these days.

I just don't know, Eldo. The old buzz isn't there any more. I really must find some other way to annoy people.