<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Worth more than just a cursory glance
Review: Before I begin my review, in response to Richard Lewis' review: before you begin laughing at the idea of Atenism being the first monotheistic religion, I suggest you read your history books. Most historians (in fact, I can't think of any who dispute it) agree that Atenism is at the very least the first case of monotheism that can be supported with archeological evidence. If you had read the Hymn to Aten, you would have come upon the lines: "O Sole God, whose powers no other possesseth" and "The Living Aten, there is none other than he." Akhenaten was actually adamant that no other gods be worshipped under his reign (What on earth are your sources that Ma'at was worshipped?). Polytheism slowly began to emerge in Armana when Smenkhare was installed as co-regent as a political compromise. But, certainly at the beginning of his rule, no other gods were worshipped publically in cities controlled by the Pharaoh (Thebes was not under the religious control of the pharaoh after the capital was moved to Akhetaten, now Tell el-Amarna). Even Donald Redford, a well-known critic of Akhenaten, views Atenism as the first monotheistic religion. O and worshipping many gods and goddesses as manifestations of one god while more sophisticated than, say, Greek polytheism, does not qualify as true monotheism.
I just don't want people who are unfamiliar with the subject matter to think that it's a shocking claim (it's very well accepted). What is shocking and deserving of scrutiny is his claim that Moses and Akhenaten were the same person. Osman does a good job of providing some very compelling circumstantial evidence. For example, the transliteration of the Ancient Hebrew "Adonai" to "Aten" and the tracing of "Moses" to the Egyptian word "Mos". Its also compelling that Akhenaten's grave has never been found (a fact echoed in my other reading). In any case, I find Ahmed Osman remarkably inconsistent as a scholar. His arguments range from very cohesive and clear (even when covering uncharted territories) to frustratingly convoluted and obtuse. I would have given this a lower rating for that reason except that I think his central idea is one worthy of a lot of attention. The parallels are very powerful between Moses' and Akheanaten's life stories. Ahmed does an excellent job establishing an overlapping chronology for their lives. I also think his re-intepretation of biblical symbols at the end of Moses' life is interesting. In the end, this is just a theory, but one that very well may be true.
And, because of this, I think it's tragic that Osman published "In the House of Pharaohs" claiming that Jesus and Tutankhamen were the same person. That's just ridiculous. i haven't even read that book, but Tutankhamen was a polytheist who died at the age of 19. Way to completely discredit yourself as a serious Egyptologist. Anyone who wants to read more about Tutankhamen, Akhenaten's son, should read The Murder of Tutankhamen by Bob Brier, easily one of the best books written on this subject.
Rating: 
Summary: Moses or Akhenaten??
Review: Ahmed Osman did extensive research on monuments, papyrus texts and the tombs of Egypt. However his basic idea that Akhenaten was Moses is proposterus and his arguments are unconvincing. Despite this, his extensive research in Egyptian and Israelite history is quite helpful. He also follows the western idea that the Egyptians were the first monotheists and that their sun-god had no shape. this is despite much evidence in his book from the time of Akhenaten showing the sun as a disc and that the name aten means disc. However the book is worth reading if only for the extensive research without his suppositions.
Rating:
Summary: Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha
Review: Anything for money... what a joke. The idea that the Atenist religion was the first monotheism is silly when one considers that other deities(including Ma'at) continued to exist alongside the Aten. Akhenaten did not remove all the other Netjeru, but most of them. Still, this makes the religion far from the standard of 'monotheism.' Additionally, the Egyptians were already a form of monotheistic(where the various 'gods,' or Netjeru, are aspects of the One) and similar ideas were found in Babylon in its latter years.It has been supposed that Moses may be a shortened version of an Egyptian name(such as Thothmosis). True or not, I do not believe this makes Moses an Egyptian king, the founder of monotheism, and so on. This is just another ploy to sell books to people who enjoy 'conspiracy theories'- it's really just the "I know a secret" mentality that people buy into. I'm not saying that conspiracies and secrets don't exist... but this is just silly.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent book
Review: I find it funny that most people on here that have given there rewiew is of a Christian origins. He has truly out classed many interpretation that Christian historians have been about to give. Using his philosophies should only encourage one to search for themselves instead of following these preachers, Elders without research for themselves. Josephus Flavius, Manetho and other called Mosheh and Egyptian and if you were to look at the life style (meaning upbringing of Akhenaton) you is identical to that of Mosheh. I'm a Yisraelite and I have to commend him on this research because it was definetely good.
Rating:
Summary: Startling...to say the least.
Review: I first read this book after viewing an article online on the Graham hancock website. I must admit that I was rather intrigued by the fearless claims made by the author. However having read widely into this genre, including authors such as Laurence gardner, I found some of the information to correlate with the vague historical context of Akhenaten. Certainly for open minded readers this book is highly recommended as a study of the origins of monotheism in an unprejudiced manner. My only criticism is that it wanders from the topic slightly later on in the book.
Rating:
Summary: Intriguing
Review: I have always been fascinated with the stories of both of these men. I am a Christian, so I am aware that believing any of this is going to be met with criticism. However, this book makes great sense to me, and explains some of the mystery surrounding both of these men. One needs to read the book about Joseph as well, for a fuller understanding.
I find it entirely believable that they are the same man. If out of the blue a Pharaoh ascends the throne, and changes the religion to monotheism, and then that same Pharaoh disappears from history mysteriously, but we suddenly have Moses and he is taking a stand against the house(s) of Pharaoh in the name of the One God, how can one not have an open mind to the possibility?
There are writings between the Bible and those of Ahkenaten that have been noted as being similar. I find this idea of them being the same person much easier to swallow than Moses coming after Ahkenaten and "borrowing" these same writings and including them in the Bible.
Furthermore, if Ahkenaten was deemed the "heretic" Pharaoh, then how did Moses have access to these sayings/writings to
enlist them in the Scripture?
I do not buy "hook, line and sinker" everything that was written, but the case for this is very very strong, and deserves to be heard and analyzed without prejudice.
It helps to be informed to the Bible story and the historical record for the eighteenth dynasty of Egypt. As I read this book,
I realized that I was already familiar with the majority of the information, I just simply never completed the connection.
Please give it an opportunity. After reading the book, I have spoken to a number of sincere Christians regarding the possiblity of this being true, and they were fairly persuaded.
I highly recommend reading the book, and forming your own opinion, with equal research to the known facts. They are available.
Rating:
Summary: Moses is Back from Exile and with a Vengence
Review: It has been said that Moses is a figure of myth that was lost to history, and that Akhenaten is a man of history who strangely does not figure in myth. It is largely due to Ahmed Osman that many people now consider the link between the so-called heretic king Akhenaten and Biblical Moses to be self-evident. The increasing popularity of his work has now provoked the jealous rage of institutional scholars as shamefully evidenced in the March 2002 issue of Archaeology Magazine. Sadly, the pioneering work "Moses: Pharaoh of Egypt" by Ahmed Osman has been out of print and difficult to acquire for many years. But no longer. Under this new title you can read for yourself the arguments that have launched a revolution in the way we think about the ancient world and the Scriptures.
Rating:
Summary: AHMED OSMAN IS A MASTER OF THE TRADE
Review: Moses and Akhenaten is a 'must read' book for all readers who are interested in the historical background of the Bible. Osman writes with authority and sensitivity on the enigmatic characters of Moses and Akhenaten and this formative epoch of monotheism. As usual, he cuts through the thick veil of religious myths and takes us out of the confusion by fitting Moses/Akhenaten into the correct historical context. And when he does this, Lo and Behold, a whole new picture begins to emerge, clear, lucid and which has that distinct ring of truth. This is a book that will thrill the seasoned amateur of historical whodunnits as well as all newcomers into this exciting field of study. Robert G. Bauval
Author of THE ORION MYSTERY
and MESSAGE OF THE SPHINX (with Graham Hancock)
Rating:
Summary: TELLING AN LOGICAL TRUTH FROM AN AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE
Review: THE LOGICAL EXSPINATIONS TO ALL THE MYTHS STORE`THAT WE WERE RASIEDUP TO BELEAVE OUR FATHERS MOTHERS PREACHERS EXT, WHERE TELLING US THAT WERE TRUE ALL HAVE A ORGIN THE AUTHOR BREAKS DOWN THESE MYTHS AND LIE`S ON AN IDEOLGE OF LOGICAL THOUGTH NOT ON ANY SUPRIOR NOTION (LEAVEING EUROPEAN RAI SIEM OUT)
Rating: 
Summary: How far can your imagination SSTTRRREEEETTTTCCCHH?
Review: This book is interesting and well written overall, but not really very persuasive. I have no way of checking the writer's source material, but I suspect he's reading far more into the sources than one should. Fun to read, though.
<< 1 >>
|
