Is Akhenaton the founder of monotheism?

I was aware of the webster's etymology of amen, but this does not feel like a perfect explanation.First of all it shows a direct lineage to Hebrew, which is consistent with what my "theory" (and I mean that very loosely) would require.Second this does not explain how it entered Hebrew, especially in the way that it is used in prayer. I suppose certainly and verily might make sense, but where did that word get its meaning? Could it have been like saying "praise God", or "God willing", or "as God says", which would have derived from references to Amen(Ra)?I have been unable to trace mn in semitic roots as the dictionary suggests. Then again I am doing other things and admittedly do not have proper texts to do such research. That's why I'm looking for some help from someone much more knowledgeable in this subject area than myself, or webster.Thanks for the cite though (even if you are a living contradiction to the Word of God... if anyone is wondering this is from another thread).------------------
holmes

Okay so I got off my lazy ass for a minute and did some more in depth browsing (I won't say research) into the semitic roots of amen.My "theory" keeps feeling like a good one, in fact better after looking into the roots.Here is an excerpt from What Does Amen Mean"[amen ] is one of the few words of scripture which is actually written in it's original Hebrew form. In fact, it is practically a universal word, having been adopted "directly" from the Hebrew to Greek, Latin, English, Spanish, and many other languages. Found both in the Old and the New Testaments, it is also translated in different ways, depending upon the context of the passage in which it is found. Amen is derived from the root [ aman ], which means to be firm (i.e., permanent), and thus by implication, to be true or faithful. When we see the word Amen in scripture, it is indicating that which is truth, or said faithfully. It illustrates that which is of absolute certainty. We can get a better understanding of the word in looking at it as it is seen in a slightly different context than we normally would see it. What does amen meanIsaiah 65:16
"That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes."Both words that are translated truth there, is the Hebrew word [ amen ]. Thus it is declaring by the God of Amen, Jehovah God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2). In this context this word is expressing God's faithfulness. That He alone is the Amen, the God of truth. And indeed, the Lord is the very essence of truth. By comparing scripture with scripture and allowing it to be it's own dictionary, it's own interpreter, we come to conclusions about what words really mean in scripture. Amen is thereby defined as truth, and this understanding of the word continues to be made manifest in the new Testament. "But don't let this interfere with all the other akhenaton-judaism discussion, this is simply a subset.------------------
holmes

Interesting that the debate centers upon what was happening in a small (and now insignificant) culture in the Nile Valley.Many foragers believe in a Creator and these types of cultures predate the culture in the Nile. Is it not unreasonable to assume that Egyptians either borrowed the idea from foragers or never really lost it from the times when they too foraged for all that they needed.The polytheism imposed by the elites was for political control and we will never know what illiterate commoners in Egypt believed. The Pharoah we know as Akenaton may have only been responding to the wishes of the commoners and it is unlikely that he invented the belief that is so common worldwide.

Not that I am saying you are definitely wrong, but do you have any evidence to back this up? Since we get all of our knowledge about religious beliefs of these cultures from what they left behind, especially writing, I am unsure how you know what foragers believed.From all evidence I have seen, polytheism has been the default religious view of almost all cultures, not simply "imposed by elites".It could very well be that there were strains of monotheism here and there, and Akhenaton picked it up as a tool, but this sounds pretty far fetched. This is especially true as the "commoners" turned against him just as much as the elites. In fact, if any case could be made it is that monotheism was used by an elite to consolidate all power to itself and imposed on polytheists. Akhenaton certainly seemed to exhibit the excesses and consolidation of power particular to monotheistic theocracies.Polytheism is normally not averse to accepting monotheism, unless it is intolerant to the existence of other Gods. That's what makes your claim that much more strange. The priests were definitely in a power play with Akhenaton, but before that monotheism was not crushed, only after Akhenaton's move to wipe out (quite intolerant of course) all other Gods.As it stands the jews were not by any mean the "common people" of Egypt. By their own writings they were small in number and persecuted by the majority for their belief in their one particular God. That could fit in with remnants of Akhenaton's cult of the sun-god, which at that point was reviled and cursed by Egyptian society.I have seen some accounts that suggest the reason jews had a God with no real name, was so that no one could take his power away. That would be an obvious lesson learned after the vast destruction of anything related to Akhenaton and his God.Who do you worship? He has no name. He is who he is. Where are his statues (so we can smash them)? He has no idols.That's a brilliant adaptation for a religion under persecution.------------------
holmes

My claim is strange?No, what is strange is that the discussion centers around what happened in Egypt so long ago. Why is it that you assume that Egyptians first thought of one supreme being and the simple Children of Israel couldn't?They were not called Jews until after the Mesopotamian captivity. There is another line of reasoning that claims that monotheism was adopted by the Jews during this time from the worshipers of Ahura-Mazda led by Cyrus.Isn't it odd that the Children of Isreal had to adopt monotheism twice from these superior cultures? Why can't it be that these two cultures adopted monotheism from the "inferior" one of the Children of Israel? I also find it odd that they still worship this antiquated diety after 4 millenia. Hmmm...you see anyone worshipping Ahura-Mazda or Horus anymore? That is odd.Foragers didn't keep written records, but we do have recent encounters with them to study. Look up the Wakan Tanka of the Lakota and see if that is a supreme diety that fits your definition.Why focus on one small area of the world? Isn't that somewhat ethnocentric? Does that disregard what was happening in 99% of the rest of the world? What were the other corners of the world thinking at that time? Were the Children of Israel closer to ancient beliefs that people forgot when the became settled into intensive agricultural communtities?

Yes.You claimed that monotheism (especially in that "little area") was the basic and common religion and that polytheism was forced upon them by priests.I see no basis for this claim whatsoever. I suppose it could be true, but what reason do you give for it being true? Polytheism was abundant in that region (and over most of the world) until monotheism eventually came (by military force) to wipe out heathens.This is not to paint polytheists as intrinsically "better than" monotheists. However they were more tolerant of people's beliefs as long as their own was also accepted. It is the inability of monotheists to allow ANY other god, which results in more cases of iconoclasm or purges of specific religions.As far as I know, this is pretty well undisputed fact.And your attitude is strange as well.Why on earth are you getting so defensive? It is certainly a legitimate claim that Akhenaton's monotheistic religion predated Judaism.Furthermore it was toppled and its adherents oppressed around the same time that he tribes which would become Jews would have been getting oppressed and turned into slaves in Egypt.So why is it so bizarre to ask the question if jews were descendants of the SINGULAR monotheistic tradition of early Egypt?This does nothing to place them in a superior or inferior position to anybody or anything. What it does is try to place firmer roots on where judaism in specific began to grow.I totally agree there are other monotheistic tribes in the world. I also am open to evidence that there may have been an influx of a earlier monotheistic religion into Eqypt from further east. Maybe Akhenaton caught wind of this intriguing new idea and used it to build his own monotheism. If there is evidence for this then the roots may go back even further (and outside Egypt).Right now though, judaism (by its own writings I might add) begin with an oppressed people within Eqypt, at around the same time a monotheistic religion had just been crushed and its people made slaves.For god's sake a total pro-Xtian movie starring Robert Taylor or Stewart Granger made this same connection and it wasn't considered horrible at all!What it could suggest to a Xtian or jew is that in a polytheistic religion, a pharoah found the real god and tried to make it more popular. It then would not be an Eqyptian god, but the one true God though perhaps "clothed" in the tastes of ancient Egypt (just like the popular images of Jesus and Mary today have NO BEARING on the reality of what they would have looked like).What the hell is so wrong with this idea?------------------
holmes

You need to look at other continents and areas, broaden your scope to include what other areas were thinking. I'm simply saying that the idea of a Creator is a human universal and that the polytheistic religions were simply a device to manipulate commoners. Intensive agriculture was not a giant step forward and neither was polytheism. Polytheisitic religions serve to subjugate people into easily terrified subjects to be ruled by elites.Mark Cohen wrote about it as follows from his book, "Health and the Rise of Civilization" The link contains an exerpt.http://eces.org/es/health.shtmlTake a look at what foragers believed. Foraging was the mode of subsistance that humans had used for millenia ane even at the time of Akenaton, it was the mode used over the majority of the planets surface at the time. Even until relatively recently the majority of humans were foragers. Akenaton may have only rediscovered monotheism as did the Persians while they inhabited the steppes of the Iranian plateau or perhaps Abram before he migrated from Mesopotamia.Did you ever consider what I said about Wakan Tanka?

This not only totally wrong, it is also illogical. Theism evolved from animism, totemism, spiritism etc., which were all by nature pluralistic. The idea of some supreme power can be old and universal, but such an idea is not monotheistic. Many polytheistic religions had their main god(s), so the core of monotheism is not the belief in Creator, but DENIAL OF OTHER GODS.
The idea of polytheism as a device to manipulate commoners is especially silly. Everybody knows that monotheism is the perfect tool for that purpose. And our ancestors knew it as well. That’s why Akhenaton tried to establish his new cult, that’s why Constantine embraced Christianity and that’s why monotheistic religions gained so much power — because they served as a political tool to autocrats.
Monotheism is in fact perfectly unnatural and illogical. Lets compare it with Sumerian religion — the oldest religion we know. Sumerians had main god too — it was An. But strangely enough, he lost his power in favor of Enlil. But even Enlil did not had his post secure. There was Enki, for instance, who tricked Enlil many times. So we can see that polytheistic religion is dynamic, it evolves and so its gods.
Monotheistic religion on the other hand tries to pretend that the God is absolute, eternal, unchanged — in other words static, without ability to evolve, to develop (but we know that monotheistic God evolve as well, but his worshipers deny that).
This static nature of monotheistic God leads to many paradoxes. Take a flood story, for instance. In Sumerian myths, An and Enlil decided to get rid of mankind. Their decision was FINAL AND UNCHANGEABLE. It was Enki, who tricked the two main gods and saved people through Ziusudra. In Bible God decided to destroy the world, but he changed his mind for no particular reason in fact. Rather chaotic little fellow, isn’t he? I do not think so. If anybody knows one, just tell me. I am always willing to learn more. But as far as I know there are only three monotheistic religions in the world so far — Judaism, Christianity, Islam — all from one single source. Zoroastrianism was not a monotheistic religion (and I really do not understand why so many people think it was). There were other things Jews accepted from Zoroastrianism (concept of good and evil, resurrection, angels, Satan, messiah etc.) but not the idea of one god. No.

1. Wakantankism is not theism. It is spiritism.
2. We have actually no clue how original cult looked like. As you correctly pointed out, there are no written records from pre-contact era. Even after discovery white men did not pay much attention to customs of indigenous people because they regarded them inferior. So the first serious studies are well after-contact, while the influence of white culture is undeniable — especially when Jesuits and other missionaries where always among first people who reached new tribes.

------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

Hinduism does a fine job of oppressing people and it is quite polytheistic.Your line of reasoning is based on a culture evolution that is linear and wrong. Cultures do not pass through stages to get to an ultimate goal like some sort proscribed plan. Louis Henry Morgan and Herbert Spencer were simply wrong and far too many people that should know better "intuitively" accept the notion that cultures go through stages.You cite Constantine's adoption of Christianity as evidence that monotheism oppresses people, but the Romans did a fine job of slaughtering people and ruling them via polytheism. And you should note that the emporer was worshiped as a god by Romans which caused a great deal of problems for Jews at first then later Christians. Monotheism was a dangerous belief during this period. (Do not throw the stone of silliness at someone unless you are good at glass repair.)The propensity for humans to kill each other for reproductive success has been demonstrated to be a sound strategy by Napoleon Chagnon a couple of decades ago, we do not need a single Creator to give us a reason to kill. He does give us many reasons to not kill however. The ancient world was a brutal place and the Mosaic Law was quite innovative at that time since it effectively disolved class distinctions unlike any other code of that time. We were all equal before a single God. Rich and poor alike were judged by the same standard.Then you claim that it was those nasty Jesuits that gave the Lakota any notion of a single God. The idea of this concept being brought about solely by diffusion is one you should be particularly uneasy about, many people have had the idea of an afterlife...Mesopotamia was not the sole wellspring of thought for humanity. At the very least you should consider that given the human mind and a simlar problem, the solution should be similar as well.You can see this in the archeological record with the nearly simultaneous adoption of intensive agriculture worldwide. The idea of cultivation was not diffused through the world after some genius discovered the idea, it sprung up in very distant areas that could not have had any communication. One of the conundrums is why would people allow themselves to be subjugated to an elite class at all. The idea that the temporal ruler was a diety fits in nicely polytheism.The link between The Good Religion of the Persians and the polytheism of the other Aryans is well established. It is by definition a monotheistic religion. However, there are some subtle differences between Zarathustrianism and the monotheism of the Jews that lead me to believe that they have distinct origins from each other. One such difference is the disposal of the dead. With the Parsi of today, they still take their dead to be eaten by scavengers despite the fact that they live in cities. (Kipling grew up near one of these structures and he commented about how the birds would drop body parts in his yard on occasion.) Jewish people never adopted this method of disposal for dead bodies. Why would they adopt anything else from the Persians? You again tred the dangerous ground of diffusion by going through this route. (Hint: parallel evolution is somewhat firmer ground for you to try out.)Animism is simply the belief that a spirit inhabits nearly anything around us. These spirits were created by the same Creator that created humans and we might have appeased them with offerings, but we did not worship them as our Creator.[This message has been edited by Speel-yi, 09-22-2003]

Speel-yi:I have to disagree with your notion. Putting concepts of "oppression" and "manipulation" away on both sides of the argument, most simple tribal cultures are polytheistic. Actually, to be more precise, they're animist (worshipping spirits in objects and forces of nature, especially those objects/forces which are grand/powerful/etc). Pick a random tribal society in Africa which hasn't had much contact with missionaries, and study it's religion - I'd wager that almost all of the time, you'll find a polytheistic or animist religion. Few animist religions have survived to highly developed cultures; one of the few exceptions is in Japan, where the old animist religion (Shinto) has merged with Buddhism and Christianity. The progression of religions is almost always animist -> polytheist -> monotheist. If you trace the history of early religions, typically certain groups have their preferred spirits or Gods which they view as being more powerful than others. As races meet, however, they may disagree on which God or Gods are more powerful, and there often is a merger of beliefs (a prime example of this is the Greek/Roman merger, although it has happened many, many times all over the ancient world). There is a continual mixing between Gods, with certain Gods over time being viewed again by certain cultures as more powerful than others. Often, you end up with a situation like that which Japan has today, in which there is one supreme God (adopted from the Christians), with many lesser deities and demigods. Often, traces of the earlier polytheism remain even in a largely monotheistic religion (in Christianity, we have reminants of the polar Zoroastrianism (made most clear in the case of Satan), as well as the earlier polytheistic mode in the presence of angels and other angelic beings. Islam has even more - they were polytheistic more recently.).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This is so false I almost don't know where to begin. Buddhism has no creator. Neither does Taoism. Shintoism has no singular creator. Egypt and Sumeria did not have a singular creator. Neither did native americans (north and south). Neither did the aboriginals.Human universal? Aren't we stretching things a bit far in our overstatements?Polytheism a device to manipulate commoners? Based on what religions pray tell? How does a variety of deities form the best way to manipulate commoners?This goes double when certain polytheistic religions have nothing to do with "you do this and you do that or I kill you", but rather "I will grant you strength to have good crops, or take away the bad weather." Some were just about empowerment by friendly gods, than appeasement of a "jealous and angry" God.Raha and Rei have both done sufficient work on your "theory", Rei providing one of the most succinct and accurate description of how religions are seen to develop. So I'll leave my comments at this.I have no idea why you brought up intensive agriculture. I saw no evidence to counter what Rei most accurately described. Now we're back on topic. Please provide evidence. He may also have picked it up from foreigners coming into Egypt. There is a bit more evidence for this. Or he may have created it and the Jews were offshoots of his crushed religion. Let's discuss this as it is the topic. Bashing polytheists does nothing. Yeah, have you?"Wakan Tanka---
Great Spirit and central figure in the cosmology of a number of indigenous north American tribes, most notably among the Lakota. Wakan Tanka is a male figure with a role similar to the Judeo-Christian Jehova and is often called the Grandfather. Unlike the semitic god though, Wakan Tanka is also described as "many and one" and takes on numerous forms. He is Shiva, Kali and Brahma in one. Wakan Tanka is not an abstract concept of godhead; he personifies everything. He is not the god of a monotheistic religion but rather signifies a pantheistic philosophy in Lakota thought...
Wakan Tanka is not easy to understand for the uninitiated. He transcends the idea of divinity of someone brought up in a semitic, monotheistic culture. Much closer analogies can be found in Hindu religion and European paganism. "from:
Wakan Tanka - Everything2.comWas I supposed to read something written from a biased viewpoint to come to a conclusion they worship the one true Xtian God?------------------
holmes

I think I mispoke. I should have said I know there were other monotheistic tribal cultures than those in history, I simply believe there must still be some around.I'm thinking specifically about some african tribal worship. Couldn't find any links on it so maybe I am wrong.I think Rei did an excellent job of outlining progressions from animism to monotheism and I have no reason to believe all tribes have travelled that route at the same pace. Some in the arabic region may have predated Akhenaton's attempt at a large scale establishment of monotheism.I believe, though do not know for sure, that the reason Judeo-Xto-Islamic monotheism has come to dominate the scene, is that they have contacted and then pushed out all other God candidates. Monotheists who have encountered there vastly superior force of arms were likely to "convert" to the new one God.------------------
holmes

Foragers are not tribal. You have fallen into Morgan's poor analysis of culture evolution. At best foragers have a band level of organization. The concept of a tribe is one that was/is imposed on indigenous peoples by imperialistic Europeans to exploit them. At any rate, the tribe is not the central unit of human experience. If it is, where do you draw the line between a tribe and a chiefdom? The kinship based band is the primary unit of human organization.Secondly, I have personal experience with a "simple tribal culture" and have found that they are more likely to argue about the exact nature of the Creator rather than whether there is one or not. Further, the "simple tribal" people that you seek to gain knowledge of in Africa are not foragers for the most part, they too are intensive agriculturalist, although it seems to me that they are not by nature polytheists as they are animists. There is a distinction.Consider also the Red Sticks of the early American conquest. They were a resistance movement that rejected many European ideas such as slavery, alcohol and hunting with firearms. Yet they worshipped the Master of Breath as a single diety that controlled whether you would breath once more again or not. How is it that they rejected European culture wholesale yet accepted the notion of monotheism? Was diffusion of this idea so powerful that it overcame the idea that there must be many gods despite rejection of other European ideas?

quote:

---

Foragers are not tribal.

---

Are you having fun redefining reality? From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:"A social group comprising numerous families, clans, or generations together with slaves, dependents, or adopted strangers"The word comes from the Latin "tribus", which was a division of the Roman people.And, as I stated, most tribes are either animist or polytheistic. It's reality. Live with it.

quote:

---

where do you draw the line between a tribe and a chiefdom

---

A chiefdom is government by a chief. A chief is the "head of a body or organization". In short, a tribe is a chiefdom.Quit trying to twist standard definitions of English!

quote:

---

I have personal experience with a "simple tribal culture"

---

Which one? Let's run down a list of some tribal cultures, and see what their religions were like. Cameroon (historic): Animist. Komililo Nandi: Polytheist. Kwaya: Animist. Pygmy: Animist. Ababua: Animist. Kikuyu: Animist/Polytheist. Basonge: Animist/Polytheist. Yoruba: Polytheist. Efik-Ibibio: Polytheist. Ekoi: Polytheist. Mandingo: Polytheist. Vogul: Polytheist. Altaic: Polytheist. Tuvinian: Animist/Polytheist. Mongol: Animist. Buryat: Polytheist. Bhil: Animist/Polytheist. (I could go on as long as you wanted me to).As you can see, it's a mix of animist and polytheist religions (and sometimes, it's hard to tell the difference). Yes, some of the time there is only one "creator" god or spirit; in others, there are multiple creators. But there are almost always many gods and spirits (at least in tribes that haven't been heavily influenced by Christianity or Islam).

quote:

---

are not foragers for the most part

---

What is your obsession with foragers? Yes, foragers are typically *a* type of simple tribal culture, but they're hardly the only one. Small, isolated farming socieities were also tribal cultures, and have the same sort of religions influences (albeit typically with a more agricultural and less animist influence).

quote:

---

Consider also the Red Sticks of the early American conquest

---

.. which were a branch of the Creek indians ("Muskogee"). The "Master of breath" of which you speak ("Esaugeta Emissee") was the greatest of spirits, but was surrounded by many lesser spirits. Besides, the creeks had quite an empire; there were hardly a small tribe or band. Their religion was further advanced toward monotheism, but was hardly monotheistic. For a comparison to other tribes, the Cherokee religion sounds more like the X-files, with references to strange flying objects, cryptozoological creatures, powerful crystals, fairlylike beings, etc. There is no creator; the world had been created by a number of benevolent beings. The Sioux had a religion that views time as almost non-linear, and considers spirituality too difficult to understand more than vaguely, except being guided by a force called "Wakan tanka". Everything has its own spirit (animist), guided by this force, which is not portrayed as a being, just a unifying power. The Cheyenne recognize a number of deities, the two most important are the "Wise One Above" and one who lives in the Earth. Etc - I could go on as long as you want.Look, what will it take to get you to accept this? It's reality; you're going to have to accept reality sooner or later. Most tribal cultures are animist/polytheist.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

"What is your obsession with foragers? Yes, foragers are typically *a* type of simple tribal culture, but they're hardly the only one. Small, isolated farming socieities were also tribal cultures, and have the same sort of religions influences (albeit typically with a more agricultural and less animist influence)."I'll try once again, foragers are not tribal. All humans are descended from foragers at one point in time.As for this notion of animism to polytheism to monotheism...what is your obsession with that? I'll give you credit for not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.From his book on the Aka foragers, Barry Hewlett writes, "Aka who believe in bembe, the creator of all living things, believe also that bembe retired soon after creation. The most consistently mentioned divinity or spirit is that of dzengi, a forest spirit. In the Bokoka region, dzengi is strongly associated with elephant hunting. One needs to dance and sing to dzengi to insure a successful elephant hunt. If an elephant is killed, a grand dance to dzengi is performed in which a large raffia mask symbolizing dzengi is utilized. The dzengi dance is organized and directed by the tuma, the great hunter."Page not found - About - WSU VancouverThere is no reason to assume that the next "stage of development" for the Aka will be to build temples and worship many gods.