From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Unsubstantiated conjectures[edit]

There is absolutely no evidence that Atenism was enforced in the way described in the article. It was a mere example of the same henotheism that made all Babylonian gods "emanations" of Marduk.

Other gods mean?[edit]

The following passage sounds like it's criticizing the other Egyptian gods: In contrast to the old gods, Aten appears primarily to have been seen as a loving and protective god, whose primary goal was not to punish and demand allegiance and sacrifice but to support his people through his presence. This ignores how many gods, like Anubis, supposedly helped people reach the afterlife, and it sounds like an opinion. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Smenkhkare is not referenced until late in the article and earlier refernce need to be made somewhere in the Decline of Atenism section.

Finally, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun, and Ay were excised from the official lists of Pharaohs

I do not know enough about the subject to make this edit myself, but I believe that he or she should be noted as the successor to Akhenaten.


Comparison with Catholicism[edit]

it is equivalent perhaps to a new Pope declaring an obscure African deity the supreme God of Catholicism, building a new Vatican City somewhere in Canada, and abolishing all bishops as well as banning the symbol of the Cross, defacing all churches to remove all reference to Jesus, and banning any personal veneration of Jesus.

That's a powerful image. It reminded of the relation of Islam to Byzantine Christianity and Arabic paganism. --Error 22:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's also a depply flawed image. Pharaoh was not an ancient Pontiff, and the Pope has nowhere near the authority necessary. I also question the assumption inherent in this article that Atenism was monotheistic. It surely does not need highlighting that such a clear-cut definition is unhelpful and confusing to the student of this subject? (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Usermaatre-Setepenre


This article seems to repeat itself a lot, but I'm too sleepy at the moment to fix it myself, added cleanup notice. - Cymydog Naakka 04:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


The Discovery Channel advocated a position that Moses was an Atenist Prince, and rebel son of Ramses (and thus not a Jew from the rushes) who killed his brother, the sub-King, whom would be the Pharoah who drown in the Red Sea... (and thus not a real Pharoah) ... Should this be integrated into the article and sourced as an origin for Judaism?

This is a very interesting theory with a fair amount of evidence (including one of the psalms found engraved inside a tomb) and doesn't seem to be covered at wikipedia, as far as I can see. I'm going to have a look at the evidence and come back when I've done enough research. If anyone has any ideas or sources about this could they comment here and I'll keep it on my watchlist. thanks, --Sachabrunel 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It sounds interesting and I like it since it at least doesn't go into the "Moses didn't exist" idea. I sounds a little fishy to be because, I might be wrong, but I think it's based off of some second century AD historian who didn't get his history correct in other places. I don't beleive that Exodus ever mentions the pharoh ever actually leading the effort to catch Moses though. While a bit of an apologetics book (though I don't understand what's so wrong with defending what one beleives with evidence since everyone else can do it) Kenneth A. Kitchen (Egyptologist) gives what I think is the best evidence of the Exodus and he places it around 1260 BC I think. That's too late for Moses to be an Atenist but certainly allows enough space for Akhenaten to be influenced by the Hebrews. Kitchen's book seems to be part of a dueling triad with Finkelstein's and Dever's books on the same subject but I've read all three and I would have to say that the latter two overlook quite a bit of evidence. While not being an expert in the rest of the Old Testament, being an Egyptologist does give him an edge over the other two regarding Israel in Egypt and Moses. (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It is speculative. If any more than Ove von Spaeth mentions it, it might deserve mentioning. Till then Ove von Spaeth's site. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Responding to a years old claim, there are no psalms in the Amarna tombs. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Egyptian Religion[edit]

I am proposing a Wikiproject to enhance articles on Egyptian Religion.... please check it out and see if you want to add yourself.

KV 19:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


The label of monotheism is not universally accepted and claimed to be rather Freud's interpretation. This newsgroup message suggests henotheism or monolatry. The message is written by a specialist and contains references. Pavel Vozenilek 14:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are entierly right in doubting that the term monotheism is appropriate, however there are stronger sources than newsgroups, and we'd want citations from those. Redford, I believe, has somthing in Heretic King, and Reeves has somthing in False Prophet about this as well. Thanatosimii 04:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You have several references in the last part of Katherine Griffis-Greenberg's article (link provided by Pavel above your post) : Stevens, A. 2003. The Material Evidence for Domestic Religion at Amarna and Preliminary Remarks on its Interpretation and Assmann, J. 2001. _The Search for God in Ancient Egypt_. D. Lorton.
It would be appropriate to also mention, in the first paragraph, that Atenism can be described as Henotheistic. --Squallgreg (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nefertiti's Role[edit]

Wasn't Nefertiti supposed to be a non-egyptian princess ? It is seen as possible that she was an Hebrew princess... And she may have influenced her husband and founded a new branch of monotheism. It's just a theory, but it doesn't look too weird, and that would prove the link between atenism and judaism for good. Would it be worthy to mention this theory ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

If you can source it reliably, certainly. SamEV 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There aren't any sources for that theory. Nefertiti was once considered to be the same as Gilukheppa, a mitannian princess, but that theory hasn't been supported in over 50 years, and she is now almost universally considered to be the daughter of Ay and the Granddaughter of Yuya and Tjuya. Definitly not a Hebrew princess, because the Hebrews were at the very best only in Canaan for 20-40 years, and at the worst still in Egyptian slavery or (if one buys the minimalist interpretation) not yet a people group at all. In none of these scenarios could there be a state enough to define one of them as a "princess." Ask any reputable archaeologist or historian from this time period and you'll get that answer. Thanatosimii 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Marfan's syndrome" – Hey!![edit]

Section Amarna art, from text "However, according to some controversial theories," the section starts to hallucinate and give bizarre accounts. Now: these controversial theories can stand, but the structure of the text must be improved so that it is stressed that each of these "theories" (if that would be the name of one mans/womans talkative speculation) are very speculative, and have no general acceptance. Reading about Marfan's syndrome give no indication to me that forms of those affected are more feminine than otherwise. Wild speculations are wild speculations – they're sort of WP:trivia, unless supported by a scientific argumentation. Said: Rursus 09:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody have improved it, nor presented any references, so I removed it as undue speculation, a.k.a. one editor's fable. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Revival of Atenism[edit]

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to post something promotional, just the facts. Is there a different, and better, way I could have written it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe you aren't related to the earlier editor - the blog site would normally be against our guidelines. I see the same text is at Kemetism. The problem is references, have you got a reliable source (WP:RS)for this - and notability, see WP:Notability and in particular WP:Group - if a religion doesn't satisfy those criteria, it really doesn't belong here. dougweller (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not related to the earlier editor. I have actually posted on the Atenist forums for whoever it is to stop doing it, as I see it as counter-productive. I am currently looking for a good reliable source, but I am having trouble. I knew of one some years back, but can't seem to find it. (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Just a question/suggestion, but would Tutankhamen: Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism be a good reference for this article? It can be found online through (Odd considering it isn't a sacred text, but I cannot admit to knowing the site all that well.) (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)