Akhenaten (Box, Carter Archive 001K)

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,012
Bendigo
Well in egyptian theology he was anyway as Sa Ra, as were all kings before and after him. I think the difference between the osiriform statues of Akhenaten and those of Ramesses II, primarily at Abu Simbel, is that while the statues of both kings represent eternity, in the time of Ramesses II, Osiris exists, so Ramesses II is not usurping the role of Osiris, but that he is eternal in that after death he will become an osiris and become eternal. While in the time of Akhenaten there is no Osiris, at least not for Akhenaten, so where does this eternity devolve from if not Osiris, and I see no answer other than from the Aten via Akhenaten, and we get back to the Christian thing.

John 14:6
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Mathew 11:27
All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him .

Btw, the Egyptians already had the concept of, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle that for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".

Now I know a slant can be given to this post, but what I am pointing out is that beyond the formulaic Sa Ra, Akhenaten has given to himself attributes that Christians say make Jesus divine, and so, IMO, Akhenaten has made himself part of a god who may be tripartite just as the Christian god is. If this is so, then the debate would be if the rays of the Aten, or Nefertiti as Tefnut, constituted the third part of the trinity with the Aten and Akhenaten.
Even if Akhenaten did not claim a Holy Trinity as such, in practice, it certainly seemed like there was one.

Incidentally, I read somewhere once that the ‘camel’ in your quote may originally have been ‘cord’ as in ‘rope’; not as amusing as camel, but certainly sounds to me more apt, and from my reading of the Gospels, something Jesus may well have said. Not sure if the word was in Aramaic originally, can’t remember now, but it was possibly mistranslated very early on.
 

Ayrton

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,012
Bendigo
Atum, Shu and Tefnut is a trinity no less than the Christian one, though it looks different because each of the three aspects of The One has a different name and iconography, and one is female. From a Christian perspective it does not look like a trinity, but that is the perspective of a different religion who cannot lay claim to having any authority in the matter of what other religions do. But that aside, this trinity of Atum, Shu and Tefnut needs looking at, and then, if it is acknowledged as a trinity, can the relationship between the Aten, Akhenaten and Nefertiti be considered and a judgement put forward to say if it was that of a triad, like Amun, Mut and Khonsu, or a trinity, or something else. For my part, the evidence is so skimpy that it is difficult to say exactly what the relationship between the three was other than that Akhenaten has put himself in the position of being the son of the Aten in a manner more like the Jesus-God relationship than the normal Sa Ra relationship.

If Tutankhaten was in fact the son of Akhenaten, and if Akhenaten had been given more years, then I suspect that despite the veil over 18th Dynasty princes, we would have seen an evolution of Atenism and potentially a more clearer trinity with Aten, Akhenaten and Tutankhaten, whose name suggests he is a manifestation of the Aten no less than Akhenaten.
The naming of ‘Tutankhaten’ to me is stunning. Not only Aten is used, not surprisingly, but the pure novelty (like ’Akhenaten’’) is telling to me. As Birth name, it surely would not have been used by anyone other than Akhenaten’s own son!?
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,920
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Atum, Shu and Tefnut is a trinity no less than the Christian one, though it looks different because each of the three aspects of The One has a different name and iconography, and one is female. From a Christian perspective it does not look like a trinity, but that is the perspective of a different religion who cannot lay claim to having any authority in the matter of what other religions do. But that aside, this trinity of Atum, Shu and Tefnut needs looking at, and then, if it is acknowledged as a trinity, can the relationship between the Aten, Akhenaten and Nefertiti be considered and a judgement put forward to say if it was that of a triad, like Amun, Mut and Khonsu, or a trinity, or something else. For my part, the evidence is so skimpy that it is difficult to say exactly what the relationship between the three was other than that Akhenaten has put himself in the position of being the son of the Aten in a manner more like the Jesus-God relationship than the normal Sa Ra relationship.

If Tutankhaten was in fact the son of Akhenaten, and if Akhenaten had been given more years, then I suspect that despite the veil over 18th Dynasty princes, we would have seen an evolution of Atenism and potentially a more clearer trinity with Aten, Akhenaten and Tutankhaten, whose name suggests he is a manifestation of the Aten no less than Akhenaten.
Well, actually, considering the meaning of the names, while I'm looking for sources, if we want to follow this path ...

Aten = Father
Akhenaten [useful for the Aten] = Holy Spirit
Tutankhaten = Son

The Holy Spirit caused the pregnancy of the Virgin Mary ... who was the Virgin Mary who got pregnant because of Akhenaten [the Holy Spirit]?

In other words, if we look at the names, we could even suspect that Akhenaten considered himself a divine mean to give a son to the Aten. He represented the Aten, serving it ... while Tut would have been the Living Image of Aten.

A part this digression, tomorrow I will check the texts.
 
Likes: Ayrton

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,920
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Even if Akhenaten did not claim a Holy Trinity as such, in practice, it certainly seemed like there was one.

Incidentally, I read somewhere once that the ‘camel’ in your quote may originally have been ‘cord’ as in ‘rope’; not as amusing as camel, but certainly sounds to me more apt, and from my reading of the Gospels, something Jesus may well have said. Not sure if the word was in Aramaic originally, can’t remember now, but it was possibly mistranslated very early on.
We should keep in mind that the conceptualization of "trinity" is "modern" with reference to Ancient Egypt. Ancient Egyptians weren't obsessed with the idea that a deity was or wasn't in the same time one and three. They accepted that a divine figure had different aspects, images [think to Ra and his three "states" during the day].

Probably instead of "person" [the word that in Christianity is used about the Trinity] we should use the world "kheper" ... "manifestation", "form".
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,610
Crows nest
I think use of the word trinity, at least as far as Atum, Shu and Tefnut goes, makes it more clearer what sort of relationship we are looking at, as the term kheper is not specific enough in this case. For instance, the Apis Bull is a manifestation of Ptah, but it is still a bull and the relationship is not the same between the bull and Ptah as it is between Atum, Shu and Tefnut, so I think the non Egyptian term trinity is better suited for clarity in some cases.

The passage of the Sun as Khepri in the morning, Ra at midday and Atum in the evening is a trinity, in my opinion, but I would not use that term as we are not looking at something that is as straightforward as Atum, Shu and Tefnut. The Khepri - Ra - Atum relationship brings in all sorts of convolutions, not least what is the position of Horus, who is Horus the Younger as the rising Sun and Horus the Elder at the setting Sun, and he is welded to Ra as Ra-Horakhty. Then during the night Ra and Osiris become one for a brief period, leaving Horus where ?, being simultaneously his father, Osiris, and his great great grandfather, Atum, who is also Ra who is also Horus, and at this point I can hear Ralph Wiggum saying, "My head hurts".
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,920
Italy, Lago Maggiore
The habit of early 20th century translator to keep canons begins to be annoying.

Now, here you can read that Akhenaten is "Living in Truth" ... The rock tombs of El Amarna : Davies, Norman de Garis, 1865-1941 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I suspect G & D weren't Budge or Gardiner ....

Ok, look carefully the first line, left page, in the upper part ... The rock tombs of El Amarna : Davies, Norman de Garis, 1865-1941 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

shu.JPG

I don't see "living in truth", I see "Living Shu".

I think that G & D have avoided something really difficult to contextualize.

Where are we? Which is the context? It's the Later Proclamation and we can see clearly the date ...

second.JPG

In any case ... let's not run to conclusions: we have already noted that Lepsius with his drawings suffered a bit about the accuracy of the details. Even if that feather looks really a feather. I'm contacting a member of the crew of British Museum about this [she's the "expert eye" who has explained me something about Tut's statue].
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,610
Crows nest
^
This would hang on if the original inscription showed a ritual beard or not. Some lines down and across to the right the same form appears but beginning Sa Ra, here there is also no beard on the sign in question, which is Gardiner's H-C010A, Maa't. Shu, with beard, is H-C104C. In this type of seated figure of a god or goddess, the only difference between Ma'at and Shu is the beard, so a faint or damaged sign could be mistaken, but the normal form is "Living in truth".
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,920
Italy, Lago Maggiore
^
This would hang on if the original inscription showed a ritual beard or not. Some lines down and across to the right the same form appears but beginning Sa Ra, here there is also no beard on the sign in question, which is Gardiner's H-C010A, Maa't. Shu, with beard, is H-C104C. In this type of seated figure of a god or goddess, the only difference between Ma'at and Shu is the beard, so a faint or damaged sign could be mistaken, but the normal form is "Living in truth".
Yes, that's the problem with Lepsius. We have already had occasion to deal with a "Saakare" coming from a not so accurate drawing made by him. Anyway I tend to think more to "order" than "truth", to say all.

It would be useful to find out how G & D obtained the work by Lepsius. Since G & D read "Saakare" I guess they have read "Living in truth" in this case, without interpolations. But that "Living in truth" was a common form ... in doubt ... while Smenkhkare / Saakare was something new and G & D read Saakare. Because of the inaccuracy of Lepsius.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,920
Italy, Lago Maggiore
‘Living Shu’, if that is the final assessment, is very interesting to be sure!
I have taken the time to check a dictionary and the usage of the expression and actually that's not Shu, it's Truth or Justice [the usage of the owl doesn't change the matter, it's particular, but for Shu we should see a different bird]. So it's "living Truth" or "living Justice".

This for accuracy.
 
Likes: Ayrton

Similar History Discussions