Discuss the Cases For and Against the View that the Aten Cult was Monotheistic Speculation

that the Egyptian religion was monotheistic during the Amarna period has made this period and its god the Aten the subject of much scholarly debate. There seem to have been two periods where the cult of the Aten flourished as an independent entity before and during the reign of Amenhotep IV. Atenism rior to Amenhotep IV The term !aten" #|tn$ was certainly not un%nown in the years before the accession of Amenhotep IV& indeed as E. A. 'allis (udge noted& it is a very old word merely signifying the sun disc.) According to Sayed Tawfi%& the term |tn has four meanings* a disc& for e+ample for the moon or a mirror, the sun as a heavenly body, a place where solar gods may manifest, or the name of a deity.- .se of the term |tn for the sun/disc is well/attested during the 0iddle 1ingdom& and as a deity from the )2th 3ynasty onward.4 5n a scarab of Thutmose IV the Aten is mentioned as a god of battles the King fought with the Aton before himto make the foreigners to be like the [Egyptian] peoplein order to serve the Aton forever.6 (y the time of Amenhotep III the Aten was definitely seen as a god in his own right& and seems to have had a cult of his own by that stage* an official named enbuy was named s ribe of the treasury of the temple of the Aten7 It seems unli%ely that the Aten cult at this stage was monotheistic in tone. The famous sun hymn of the brothers Suti and 8or #which may or may not have been the inspiration for A%henaten9s sun/hymns$ praised Amun in his form as :a& 1heperi& 8ara%hte& 1hnum and Aten there certainly does not seem to have been any denial of other gods and the Aten too% his place among the sun/gods& though he was not as important a god as& say& :a. Aten had long been known! but it had been left to Akhenaten to dis over his real nature and supreme dignity. "e was not an invention

E. A. 'allis (.3;E #utankamen$ Amenism! Atenism and Egyptian %onotheism #<ondon* 0artin 8op%inson = >o.& <td& )?-4$ p@? Sayed TA'AI1 Aton &tudies '$ Aton (efore the )eign of Akhenaton& 0itteilungen des 3eutschen ArchBologischen Instituts Abteilung 1airo #03I1$ CCIC #)?@4$ p@@n.) 4 See for e+ample the stela of 1ing Ahmose where the 1ing is regarded as Aton [when he] shines, the words of Ineni& overseer at 1arna% under Amenhotep I& Thutmose I& II = III and 8atshepsut on the death of Amenhotep I* "is %a*estywent forth to heaven! he be ame united with the Aton! he mingled with the one whom he had ome from& and the 8orus name of Thutmose I& which says who emerges from Aton #E+amples given in TA'AI1& ibid.& p@2$ The e+ample of Ineni& according to Tawfi%& is to be regarded as a clear reference to Aten as a god. 3onald ( :E3A5:3 writes that |tn occasionally used as a synonym for :a or Amun/:a during the )2th 3ynasty #:E3A5:3 #he &un+ dis in Akhenaten,s -rogram$ 'ts .orship and Ante edents '"& Dournal of the American :esearch >enter in Egypt CIII #)?@E$ p7F$. A<3:E3 notes that Aten was considered a god of battles under Thutmose IV #>yril A<3:E3 Akhenaten$ -haraoh of Egypt / a new study Thames = 8udson& )?E2& p)EE$. 8owever& ;A:3IGE: seems to regard Aten as an invention of the late )2th 3ynasty as a reaction against more established gods. #Alan ;A:3IGE: Egypt of the -haraohs$ An 'ntrodu tion 5+ford* >larendon ress& )?E)& p-)@$. 5n opposition to Aten as a pre/)2th 3ynasty god see wor%s cited in TA'AI1& 03I1 CCIC p@@/2n.7. 6 8istorical scarab of Thutmose IV& Huoted in TA'AI1& 03I1 CCIC& pp@2/?. 7 >ited in TA'AI1& ibid.! p@?. ;A:3IGE: notes that it is diffi ult to interpret this otherwise than as implying that the Aton already re eived a ult at #hebes #;ardiner& ibid.! p-)@$. Tawfi% concludes that at least at the time of Amenhotep ''' or earlier a ult for the god Aton! propably IsicJ with its own priests! had been e0isting in #hebes beside the ult of Amon. #p2-$

of the king! but a revelation to deeper per eption. "e was in fa t old1 old as the oldest god! the e2ual of &hu at least! and soon to be ome 3ather )4o himself.E 'hile the cult of the Aten prior to A%henaten does not seem to have been monotheistic in itself& it has been suggested that there was a monotheistic tendency which encouraged A%henaten. According to V. A. Tobin& such a tendency must have e+isted in order for a monotheistic belief structure to have emerged under A%henaten.@ 3uring the early years of the Gew 1ingdom a series of new sacred boo%s were placed in Theban tombs& #he (ook of .hat is in the 5ether .orld! #he 6itany of the &un and #he (ook of 7averns which !reveal a new preo upation with a monotheisti syn retism of an ient beliefs.2 In these te+ts& :a is described as the universe itself& and as the sole god. It has been suggested that the e+pansion of the Egyptian empire under Amenhotep III& and the Kforced universalism9 caused by the 8y%os %ings? caused a shift in theological thin%ing which naturally led towards monotheism. As the empire e+panded& so the gods were seen as having dominion not only over Egypt& but over the entire world. As D. 8. (reasted writes& %onotheism is but imperialism in religion)F and thus the universalist tendency in Egyptian religion led naturally to a monotheistic belief. The tendency to ma%e the gods universal was reflected in what Dan Assmann has termed the !new sun theology"& present in the Gew 1ingdom and to some e+tent foreshadowing the religious reforms of A%henaten. 8e writes that !IEgyptian solar religion wasJ a sort of monotheism that regards the sun as the natural manifestation of the uni2ueness of god and even pre ipitates a violent revolution in the form of Amarna religion.)) This new theology& combined with the Egyptians9 !powerful urge towards monotheism)- may& so the argument says& show that A%henaten merely realised a tendency already within Egyptian religion. Atenism under A%henaten 'hile Atenism was not un%nown before the time of Amenhotep IV& it was during his reign that the Aten gained great #even sole$ prominence among the gods& and it is to that reign we must loo% to decide whether Atenism was necessarily monotheistic. Amenhotep IV showed a mar%ed preference for the Aten from the beginning of his reign& building a temple at 1arna% in his honour& and moving to a city named in honour of the Aten in Lear E of his reign. 8e gave his god a formal name& enclosed within two cartouches& the early form of which #prior to Lear ?$ has been translated by 8ornung as )e+"arakty! who re*oi es in the hori8on in his name &hu! who is Aten.)4 #onh Ro Or-#xty Hoy m #xt m rn.f m Sw nty m Itn$. Scholars such as
E @

G. de ;. 3AVIES Akhenaten at #hebes Dournal of Egyptian Archaeology IC #)?-4$ p)6E Vincent Arieh T5(IG !#heologi al -rin iples of Egyptian )eligion #Gew Lor%* eter <ang& )?2?$ p)EF. This point that it would be impossible for A%henaten to independently come up with monotheism& is disputed by <. A. '8ITE in 'khnaton$ #he 9reat %an versus the 7ultural -ro ess Dournal of the American 5riental Society E2 #)?62$ pp?)/))6. 2 >yril A<3:E3 Akhenaten$ -haraoh of Egypt / a new study Thames = 8udson& )?E2& p)E7 ? 3onald (. :E3A5:3 #he &un+dis in Akhenaten,s -rogram$ 'ts .orship and Ante edents! ' Dournal of the American :esearch >enter in Egypt CIII #)?@E$ p7F )F D. 8. (:EASTE3 :evelopment of )eligion and #hought in An ient Egypt #<ondon* 8odder = Stoughton& )?)-$ p4)7 )) Dan ASS0AGG Egyptian &olar )eligion in the 5ew Kingdom$ )e! Amun and the 7risis of -olytheism Tr. Anthony Alcoc% #<ondon* 1egan aul International& )??7$ p)E. 8owever Assmann describes the Huestion of whether solar religion was actually monotheistic as !irrelevant". )Alan ;A:3IGE:& Egypt of the -haraohs$ An 'ntrodu tion 5+ford* >larendon ress& )?E)& p-)E

Tobin and Tawfi% have translated Sw as !brightness"& !light"& !heat"& or as another term for the sun& rather than the name of the god Shu. 8owever& 0orenM argues that the word Shu here is an allusion to Shu as the son of :a/Atum and that this thereby rais[es] the god+king Akhan*ti ;<Akhnaton,= to unity with his fatherthis is a trinitarian formulation.)6 0orenM believes there are two ways to understand the early name of the Aten& either as a modalistic trinity of :a/8ara%hte& Shu and Aten& or a Ktrinity of becoming9 of :a/8ara%hte& Aten and the son of Shu who is A%henaten. 'hile it is certainly possible to ma%e a case that A%henaten was regarded as a god& to identify him either with the son of Shu& or with Shu himself& seems rather more difficult. There seems to be no reason why we should not read this Ktrinity9 as :a/ 8ara%hte& Aten and ShuNA%henaten& thus identifying A%henaten with Shu himself rather than with a conjectured !son of Shu". Especially considering that A%henaten referred to himself as the child of his god)7 then in a Ktrinity of becoming9 we might e+pect A%henaten to be the child of :a/8ara%hte #i.e. Shu the son of :a$ rather than the grand/child of the god. Alternately it is also possible to say that A%henaten is to be identified with the Aten itself& and not with Shu or :a/8ara%hte #e+cept by the nature of a trinity$. As courtiers worshipped the Aten only through the intermediary of A%henaten& their altars contained pictures of the royal family rather than representations of the god alone& and prayers in the tombs were addressed to A%henaten rather than to the Aten directly& it is not perhaps unreasonable to assume with Aldred that if the Aten were a &ole 9od! as is so often pro laimed! it is lear that his son! Akhenaten! an only be an in arnation of himself.)E 3onald :edford has also written that the term Hoy, used in the name of the Aten& had alternate meanings. 3uring the reign of Amenhotep III& Pr-Hoy was used as a term for the palace at 0alQata& which was used for the celebration of the jubilees&)@ and this palace certainly seems to have had significance for the new faith& as the Kpalace/window9 scene found in Theban tombs #indicating the rewards given to a righteous official by his %ing$ was also influenced by the palace of 0alQata& according to G. de ;. 3avies.)2 Dubilees were also a part of the titles of the Aten perhaps reflecting his role
)4

translated by Eri% 85:G.G; Akhenaten and the )eligion of 6ight Tr. 3avid <orton #Ithaca* >ornell .niversity ress& )???$ p46. This is alternately translated as !:e/8ara%hti who rejoices in the horiMon in his name* as O Shu& who is IAtenJ" #Siegfried 05:EGP Egyptian )eligion Tr. Ann E. 1eep& <ondon* 0ethuen = >o.& <td& )?EF& p)6@$& as !<ives :/8ara%hte of the two horiMons& who rejoices in the horiMon in his name of Show& who is the Aton" #Daroslav QE:GL An ient Egyptian )eligion 8utchinson9s .niversity <ibrary& )?7-& pE-$& !:eo/8ara%hte/rejoicing on the horiMon in his manifestation as the light which is in the Aton" #Sayed TA'AI1 Aton &tudies '>$ .as Aton / #he 9od of Akhenaten / ?nly a %anifestation of the 9od )eo@ 03I1 CCCII )?@E p--F$& !The <iving 8orus of the two horiMons& e+alted in the Eastern 8oriMon in his name of Shu/who/is/in/the/3is%" #E. A. 'allis (.3;E& #utankamen$ Amenism! Atenism and Egyptian %onotheism <ondon* 0artin 8op%inson = >o.& <td& )?-4& p@?$ and !The <iving 5ne& :a/8ora%htey who rejoices on the horiMon in his name as the (rightness which is the Aten" #Vincent Arieh T5(IG #heologi al -rin iples of Egyptian )eligion Gew Lor%* eter <ang& )?2?& p)E6$. )6 Siegfried 05:EGP& Egyptian )eligion p)6@ )7 &in e you [Aten] founded the world! you rouse themA for your son! who emerged from your body!A the king of the two Egypts! who lives on %aat! 5eferkheperure .aenre!A the son of )e! who lives on %aat!A the lord of diadems! Akhenaten! great in his lifetime #The ;reat 8ymn to the Aten& translated by Eri% 85:G.G;& !Akhenaten and the )eligion of 6ight Tr. 3avid <orton& >ornell .niversity ress& )???& p24$ )E >yril A<:E3 Akhenaten$ -haraoh of Egypt / a new study #Thames = 8udson& )?E2$ p)27 )@ cited in 3onald (. :E3A5:3& #he &un+dis in Akhenaten,s -rogram$ 'ts .orship and Ante edents! ' Dournal of the American :esearch >enter in Egypt CIII #)?@E$ p76 )2 G. de ;. 3AVIES Akhenaten at #hebes Dournal of Egyptian Archaeology IC #)?-4$ p)62. 3avies writes the design of the <pala e window,must! ' think! be a distorted refle tion of the throne hamber at %alQatah.

as the Kheavenly haraoh and he was called the 9reat 6iving Aten who is in Bubilee)?. :edford writes& in the se ond year of Akhenaten,s reign! we en ounter the e0panded form bXn "oy-m-#Xt, whi h an only be rendered as <the astle of him who re*oi es in the hori8on,?n the basis of this meaning! then! the most obvious andidate for the epithet <"e who re*oi es in the hori8on, is the king himself.-F Sayed Tawfi% writes that the talatat of 1arna% show that A%henaten viewed himself as a god& as some show the title hamberlain and first prophet or 5efer+khepru+)e wao+en+)e #A%henaten$.-) According to Aldred& !A%henaten" means the Effe tive &pirit ;Cin arnation= of the Aten-- thus showing that A%henaten was indeed regarded as the Aten/made/flesh. It certainly seems possible that A%henaten could be regarded as a member of the Ktrinity of becoming9& and even possible that he was identified with the Aten itself. The Huestion in all this is whether& if A%henaten9s god was in such a Ktrinity of becoming9& it was therefore monotheisticR Trinities were not un%nown in Egypt prior to A%henaten& as 0orenM points out-4 but religion before A%henaten is not generally said to be e+plicitly monotheistic. Gor does the e+istence of such a god tell us anything about how adherents regarded the claims of other gods. Even if A%henaten is to be regarded as a member of this trinity of gods& then we need not stray from monotheism. The wording of the title of the Aten seems to ma%e it clear that Shu and Aten are to be regarded as forms of :a/8ara%hte& whether as separate persons within one godhead& or different modes of the one god& this is still a monotheistic formula. In Lear ? of A%henaten9s rule& he changed the title of his god to #he 6iving ?ne! )a! ruler of the two hori8ons! who re*oi es in the hori8on in his name as )a who has ome in the Aten.-6 A%henaten thus removed the names of 8ara%hte and Shu from his god. This later stage of his reign also saw persecution of other gods on monuments& with the name of Amun in particular being erased even from the name of the %ing9s father Amenhotep III. The representation of the Aten no longer included the falcon/headed god& and even the plural !gods" was sometimes removed& and the word for !god" was replaced with !aten".-7 This period of the reign also saw the foundation of a new city A%hetaten as the home of the god in Lear E. This stage of the reign has been seen as indisputably proving the monotheistic character of A%henaten9s new religion if A%henaten believed the other gods of Egypt e+isted and had power& he would not have defaced their names in the manner
)?

>ited in >yril A<3:E3 Akhenaten$ -haraoh of Egypt / a new study #Thames = 8udson& )?E2$ p)E2. Aten seems to have held three jubilees& and they seem to have coincided with the jubilees of Amenhotep III& during the time in which Aldred posits a co/regency between Amenhotep III and IV. -F 3onald (. :E3A5:3& #he &un+dis in Akhenaten,s -rogram$ 'ts .orship and Ante edents! ' Dournal of the American :esearch >enter in Egypt CIII #)?@E$ p76 -) Sayed TA'AI1& Aton &tudies '$ Aton (efore the )eign of Akhenaton 03I1 CCIC #)?@4$ p24 ->yril A<3:E3 Akhenaten$ -haraoh of Egypt / a new study #Thames = 8udson& )?E2$ p)27 -4 Siegfried 05:EGP Egyptian )eligion Tr. Ann E. 1eep& #<ondon* 0ethuen = >o.& <td& )?EF$ pp)6-/)6?. 0orenM believes that these trinities were fundamentally monotheistic& that they showed the tendency of Egyptian religion to worship !one ;od with many aspects" #p)7F$ -6 #onX Ro HQ# #Xty Hoy m #Xt m rn.fm Ro ii.ti m Itn) Translated by Vincent Arieh T5(IG #heologi al -rin iples of Egyptian )eligion;Gew Lor%* eter <ang& )?2?$ p)E6. This is also translated as !:eo ruler of the horiMon in his manifestation of :eo& the father& who returns as the Aton" #Sayed TA'AI1 Aton &tudies '>$ .as Aton / #he 9od of Akhenaten / ?nly a %anifestation of the 9od )eo@ 03I1 CCCII )?@E p--F$ and !<ive :e& the ruler of the horiMon& who rejoices in the horiMon in his name :e the father #R$& who returns as Aten" #Eri% 85:G.G; Akhenaten and the )eligion of 6ight Tr. 3avid <orton& >ornell .niversity ress& )???& p@E$ -7 So instead of the !divine Igod/J offering" they now had the !Aten/offering". As cited in D. 8. (:EASTE3 :evelopment of )eligion and #hought in An ient Egypt #<ondon* 8odder = Stoughton& )?)-$

he did. So 8ornung writes that henotheism has been transformed into monotheism-E at this stage. According to 8ornung& the early part of the reign saw A%henaten embrace henotheism& he worshipped one god :aNAten but did not conceive of him as a one/and/only e+isting god. Thus& when he came to believe that Aten was the only god who e+isted& he naturally wished to stop others worshipping non/e+istent gods li%e Amun and 5siris. Some others have believed that A%henaten was a monotheist from the start of his reign& but ignored the worship of #for him$ non/ e+istent deities until he received opposition to his reforms #and specifically his consumption of temple revenues for the glory of the Aten$ from the priesthoods of those old religion especially the priests of Amun.-@ 8ornung suggests that Atenism be considered monotheistic for the same reason that the 5ld Testament is considered monotheistic because the god is jealous of his worshippers& and that this is a statement of the non/e+istence of other gods than he. 'hereas before A%henaten a haraoh might have signified his preference for one god over the others #i.e. been a henotheist$& never before had anyone removed the names of the other gods& never before had anyone negated their e+istence in such a visible fashion. As 8ornung writes& the blow stru k at the many deities of the traditional pantheon was a lear sign that Akhenaten was now intent on the un ompromising reali8ation of a more or less stri t monotheism.DE 8owever& even 8ornung admits that not on e is it stated that [Akhenaten] had the intention of onverting all of Egypt to belief in Aten-? which seems inconsistent with his persecution of Amun. 'hy would he not see% to replace the worship of Amun and the rest of the pantheon with the worship of AtenR If A%henaten was a monotheist& this seems particularly strange& as he would not then believe Amun et al e+isted or had power of any sort and we might e+pect him either to completely ignore those deities& or persecute them and replace their worship with that of the true god Aten. Instead& however& we see A%henaten destroy monuments containing the names of other gods& but not destroying temples or cult centres& and some of this destruction was inconsistent the name of Amun in A%henaten9s own former name #Amenhotep IV$ was sometimes not removed& and Thoth was not affected by the change. G. de ;. 3avies writes& #he deletion of the name of Amn only displays a politi al and parti ular antagonism1 that of the word <gods,! however! is on a different plane! and does indi ate a theoreti al monotheism. (ut that e0ists also in many very imperfe t religions.4F 3avies does not call Atenism a monotheistic system because of the inconsistencies within it for e+ample the name of Amenhotep IV where it appeared on monuments set up before he changed his name was sometimes left& and the Theban tomb of arennefer #cup/bearer and chamberlain of A%henaten$& and where 3avies believes he came bac% to be buried once the Atenists had left El/
-E

Eri% 85:G.G;& 7on eptions of 9od in An ient Egypt$ #he ?ne and the %any Tr. Dohn (aines #<ondon* :outledge = 1egan aul& )?24$ p-6E -@ Thus T5(IG says& 't [Atenism] attempted to destroy all other deities instead of *ust ignoring them. #he basis of this! however! appears not to have been a theologi al one! but rather one whi h was politi al and perhaps even fanati . Vincent Arieh T5(IG #heologi al -rin iples of Egyptian )eligion;Gew Lor%* eter <ang& )?2?$ p)E@. 8owever >yril A<3:E3 believes there was no opposition to A%henaten9s reforms from anyone in Egypt& and suggests that this is the invention of )?th >entury Egyptologists who were obsessed with religious conflicts in Europe. 8e says& any suggestion! therefore! that an offi ial or unoffi ial opposition to Akhenaten e0isted an be dis ounted. #Akhenaten$ -haraoh of Egypt / a new study Thames = 8udson& )?E2& p)?6$ -2 Eri% 85:G.G;& Akhenaten and the )eligion of 6ight Tr. 3avid <orton. #Ithaca* >ornell .niversity ress& )???$ p22. -? Eri% 85:G.G;& ibid.! p2E 4F G. de ;. 3AVIES& Akhenaten at #hebes Dournal of Egyptian Archaeology IC #)?-4$ p)7F

Amarna& calls him the !superintendent of the priests of all the gods4) 3avies characterises the Amarna system as henotheism& as a monotheistic system forced to compromise with a polytheistic world.4'e cannot characterise Atenism as polytheistic& because it is a matter of fact that A%henaten did not ac%nowledge any other deities in the writings about Aten&44 but we reach problems if we say that those writings or the iconography indicate a monotheistic system as many authors have pointed out& it is hardly un%nown for gods to be described as !<ord of all"& !one"& !sole"& !alone" or !self/created" and yet to be within a polytheistic system. They may be said to indicate a henotheistic system& worship of one god at a time but not of a single god as 8ornung defines it.46 The most compelling piece of evidence for the idea that Atenism was a monotheistic system appears to be the erasure of the word !gods" from monuments& and the replacement of the word !god" with !aten". The fact that this was not done everywhere& and that even tombs of Atenists such as arennefer could contain references to gods& and even say that he was in charge of the priests of all the gods& ma%es definite identification of the Amarna system as monotheistic difficult. 'e have relatively little information on the Amarna beliefs due to the destruction of Tel El/ Amarna& and the fact that those beliefs did not outlive A%henaten. That lac% of information ma%es it difficult to decide whether Atenism was monotheistic or not as there are indications of both monotheism& and of henotheism& and possibly of other e+planations for the actions of A%henaten as well. erhaps& though& we should ta%e the approach of Dan Assmann& and not attempt to label Amarna beliefs in that way& as he says* 't is first and foremost not a matter of importan e whether there are other gods besides this solitary god of the solar *ourney! but rather than he an be thought of and des ribed as a ting without referen e to other gods.47 'e can certainly label Aten as a solitary god& and in the absence of any statement on the e+istence or non/e+istence of other god from Atenist sources& perhaps it is better to thin% of him simply as a solitary god& and to define Atenism as a monolatrous religion& to use 0orenM9s definition.

4) 4-

G. de ;. 3AV IES& ibid.! p)7Fn.- emphasis his. As Tobin puts it& this traditional plurality of deities! a polytheisti form of e0pression! would have made it virtually impossible for the myth+orientated mentality of Egypt to re*e t all other deities in favour of one sole god. #Vincent Arieh T5(IG !#heologi al -rin iples of Egyptian )eligion Gew Lor%* eter <ang& )?2?& p)7@$ Evidently this mythological orientation e+tended even to the Atenists& if we are to interpret their failure to e+punge the name of Amun and of other gods from monuments as a revolt against the destruction of their traditional gods. 44 Some have suggested that the mentions of :a indicate a polytheistic or duotheistic system& but it would seem to be the case that :a and Aten were viewed as one and the same god. See Sayed TA'AI1 Aton &tudies '>$ .as Aton / #he 9od of Akhenaten / ?nly a %anifestation of the 9od )eo@ 03I1 CCCII )?@E 46 Eri% 85:GIG;& 7on eptions of 9od in An ient Egypt$ #he ?ne and the %any Tr. Dohn (aines #<ondon* :outledge = 1egan aul& )?24$ p-4@ 47 Dan ASS0AGG Egyptian &olar )eligion in the 5ew Kingdom$ )e! Amun and the 7risis of -olytheism Tr. Anthony Alcoc% #<ondon* 1egan aul International& )??7$ pE?