Please post your comments and suggestions for this article.

Comment by Ben Large on February 15th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

I have several issues with this article.
First is the constant statement that Akhenaten’s Reform was monotheistic. It was infact, Henotheistic, which is mentioned but only in a side comment (an argument and sources supporting it on this subject can be found here http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/akhenaten.html). The major indication that it was Monotheistic used in the article was the work of Freud.
That comes to my second issue with this article. For half the article, the major source stated in the text was Freud. Freud was famous for his works in psychology and his psychoanalysis, not for his knowledge of historical matters. Despite this, half the article is written in a manner suggestion that the article is not about the history and significance of Akhenaten, but instead about Freud’s analysis and theories on Akhenaten and his reform. There are more sources to use about a historical figure (not to mention better ones) than a psychologist.

My final, and major, issue is about a passage of text from the author of this article.
It is found in the sub section “Akhenaton and Moses” (which is spelled incorrectly).
The text reads “The theory does challenge a traditional Jewish and Christian view, so it is easy for ‘insiders’ to dismiss contributions from outside religion as unqualified to speak about religion, as if scientists and psychologists have no genuine interest in religious matters, claiming a privileged right to speak on matters of faith.”
This is an obvious insult to those of the Jewish and Christian faith. It basically states that Christians and people of the Jewish faith will deny any contributions from outside sources that contradict their own religion despite the qualifications of those sources. Not only is this obvious, but the manner in which the author says this makes these people sound like assholes.

“…claiming a privileged right to speak on matters of faith.” To say that Christians dislike any of these theories is common sense, the authors placement of the above text not only drives this point home, but does so in a way that specifically targets any Christian or Jewish person in an aggressive and sarcastic manner “…as if scientists and psychologists have no genuine interest in religious matters…”.
Such little side comments as this are no more then the author’s own personal views, and turns the information provided from non-partisan to one sided.
I suggest that you remove this, as not only is it unnecessary, but it is also highly insulting.

Comment by Ben on February 15th, 2009 at 5:38 pm

Your author also fails to mention that while there are theories that Moses was influenced by Akhenaten, the exact opposite could also be true (see this webpage http://www.heptune.com/Akhnaten.html)

Comment by Clinton Bennett on February 16th, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Regarding Akhenaton the vast majority of books consulted described him as a monotheist, although this is sometimes qualified. “Monotheism” rather than “Henotheism” represents the scholarly contention. It could be argued that Moses Akhenaton rather than vice-versa or indeed that they influenced each other. I prefer academic sources to web-based material where possible. I do not agree that the remarks about not claiming a privileged right to speak on matters of faith insults anyone although it does criticize those who do so. Shutting out any voice is unacceptable. Freud’s views about religion were based on serious research and can not be dismissed. His work represents a major contribution to this subject and merits lengthy discussion.

Comment by Clinton Bennett on February 16th, 2009 at 1:49 pm

I agree that additional references, of which there are many, to the monotheistic nature of Akhenaton’s reforms could be included.

Comment by Astennu on February 20th, 2009 at 1:35 pm


There is the claim that Kemetic Orthodoxy is similar to Atenism, which really is not true. Also, there are modern Atenists out there (as I am one of them). If something is going to be put in the article about modern Atenist practices, I do not see how Kemetic Orthodoxy fits in.

Comment by neil hawkins on May 20th, 2010 at 8:51 pm

I fail to see how this article is insulting. I have absolutely nothing against anyone who is deeply religious, regardless of faith. However, having done my own research on Akhenaten I have come to the conclusion that this particular pharaoh is the father of all Abrahamic religions.

Christianity finds its roots in Judaism, as does the faith of Islam. There are far too many similarities between Atenism and Judaism to be dismissed. The hymn to Aten which was written by Akhenaten is not just similar, but very nearly the same as Psalm 104.

Furthermore, there is no historical eveidence in any Ancient Egyptian writings that slaves were used to build the pyramids, or any other monumental structure. On the contrary, the labourers and sculpters were well paid, well housed and well fed. They even had the opportunity to share a few beers with one another. In addition the workers were thanked and hailed in writings for their efforts. This is hardly the treatment of slaves!

Ancient Egypt has been accused of being a tyrranical and cruel regime by tall stories and religious nonsense. The name of Akhenaten should be publicised more so that he becomes as well known as the historically inaccurate figure that is Moses.

Leave a Reply

return to top