Customer Reviews

Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

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.

I thought it prudent to do a generic review of the two books so at least they can be compared as they are dealing with the same topics. The two books are `Act of God' by Graham Philips and `Out of Egypt' by Ahmed Osman. They should be read concurrently.

[*NB: Out of Egypt seems to be out of print hence not listed on Amazon. As my review dealt with Moses and Akhenaten, I have placed my review here even though I have not read Osman's book, 'Moses and Akhenaten. Will get hold of it soon!]

The two authors of their respective books do talk about the same topic of the origins of the Bible stories of Moses and Pharoah (Osman also talks about Christianity) but they have different interpretations of the events and identities of the persons involved. At the outset both books seem to furnish the reader with evidence for their theories and convincingly so. But when the two books are compared, they are diametrically opposed.

1. Identity of Moses:

- Philip's view: It was a prince called `Tuthmosis' whose account in Egyptian literature is spurious and not much is said about him. He was the elder brother of Akhenaten and rightful heir to the throne before he mysteriously disappears. Both Moses and Akhenaten shared the similar views about the one deity. Some of the Atenists joined the Israelites during the Exodus

- Osman's view: Moses was Akhenaten. Because they shared the same religious beliefs they must have been the same person

2. Identities of other peoples

- Philip's view: The other peoples such as David, Joshua, Tutenkhamun etc. are as accepted by the conventional thought

- Osman's view: Tutenkhamun was Jesus. He was killed on Mt. Sinai by Pinhas. Osman argues that the New testament also claims that the Roman soldier who killed Jesus on the cross was Pinhas. Hence the real physical Jesus (Titenkahmun) was confused with the spiritual Jesus of the New Testament. Tuthmosis III was David. Aye was Joseph of Arimathea. Amonhotep III was Solomon

3. Cause of River Nile Turning Red

- Philip's view: Mt. Thera erupted and blocked sunlight. Iron Oxide spewed out and gave the Nile the reddish colour. Because of the catastrophe, plagues ensued and fish died on the Nile.

- Osman's view: The Nile turning red is seasonal. During the season of Inundation, the Nile waters turn reddish. If the events took place in the Eastern Delta this suggests late Summer. The plagues were natural occurrences during the course of the Egyptian year.

4. Origin and meaning of the name, `Moses'

- Philip's view: It is from the Egyptian word, `Mosis' or Mos, meaning `son'. Many people thought that the Hebrew name of Moshe was given to Moses because it means `to draw', and he was drawn out of the water. Philips makes a good point that Egyptians did not use Hebrew. So `Mos' was used which means `son'. The woman who adopted Moses brought him up as a son and a part of the Royal household. `Mos' is used as an adjunct to `Tuth'. Hence the name `Tuthmosis'. So the shady character, Tuthmosis (Akhenaten's older brother) was Moses who led the Israelites out of Egypt.

- Osman's view: Similar to Philips. He also refers to the Hebrew `Moshe' (to draw). But Osman understands `Mos' to mean son in context of a rightful heir, i.e. royalty. As Akhenaten was the rightful heir of Amonhotep III, therefore Akhenaten is Moses.

Summary

You can see how the two different authors are diametrically opposed to each other, yet they seem to furnish their theories with evidence. I came across Graham Philip's book by the suggestion of an Atheist who seemed to be convinced by his investigative research. But as the reader can judge, theories are not proof! The conspiracy theories further become ludicrous when other authors try to link the Pyramids with alien contact (Robert Temple,`The Sirius Mystery' or Peter Lemesurier, 'Gods of the Dawn').

I believe that the best book on the Hebrews and the Egyptians is by the late Maurice Bucaille (well known for his classic, `The Bible, the Quran and Science'), a French doctor and Egyptologist, who gives a very objective account of the Israelites and sheds some interesting light on the Bible and the Quran. The name of this book is, `The Hebrews in Egypt'. This book makes more sense than the portfolio of exotic theories that surround the pyramids, the Jews and the ancient Egyptians. Unfortunately this book is not available at Amazon. Visit a Muslim bookstore.

By Hasan Ali Imam
Ex-Parliamentary Candidate, Conservative Party
UK

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.

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.

I read Mr. Osman's book a year ago and I'm still thinking and dreaming about the possibility that Moses and Akhenaten were the same person. If not, Mr. Osman convinced me that they must have known, or heard about each other because they lived during the same period of time, or within a couple hundred years of each other. I suspect that Thera, the volcanic island in the eastern Mediterranean that is presently called Santorini, exploded during Akhenaten's reign unleashing devastating destruction throughout the region in the form of tsunamis, earthquakes, extreme weather changes, droughts, and bacterial/viral epidemics that substantially reduced the population in the region, including Egypt. I lived in Seattle when Mount St. Helens blew up and the environmental devastation caused by the blast was awful to behold. Yet, Thera's blast was magnitudes greater, perhaps greater than the blast that created Crater Lake in southern Oregon or Krakatoa's blast in the South Pacific. The damage caused by the tsunami produced by Thera's explosion must have far exceeded the damage caused by the tsunami that killed so many people in southeast Asia last December. If I'm correct, the priests of Amun-Ra likely seized the "opportunity" to blame Akhenaten and his god, the Aten, for provoking Ammun-Ra's anger thereby assuring the end of what must have been Egypt's Camelot. Small wonder that Egypt retaliated against the Atenists with the biblical oppression enslaving them and forcing them to build Pi-Ramses, the new capitol in the Nile delta that became the base of operations for the Rameside pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty. I also suspect that Egypt emptied its jails and rounded up the Hebrews (many of whom were Atenists), political dissidents, foreigners, the mentally ill, and the incurably sick and expelled them after Pi-Ramses was completed. Moses led Egypt's untouchables out of Egypt into permanent exile. Horemheb, whom many regard as the pharaoh during the oppression, or his successor Ramses I and the priests of Amun-Ra, probably thought they were pretty clever to assign Moses, or Akhenaten, to be the ruler of the nation's untouchables. Many egyptians probably followed them out into the desert hurling insults, stones, and anything else that they could throw at the struggling sweating mass of unarmed people. It must have been quite a scene. I wonder how many americans today would like to do the same thing to other americans with whom they disagree. Like the sixties song says, "When will they ever learn?"

I do not believe that any persuasive evidence exists to support claims that Semenkhare (Akhenaten's successor) was Nefertiti in drag, although Hatshepsut (an earlier 18th Dynasty ruler who governed Egypt in a co-regency with a young child named Thutmosis until he siezed control of Egypt in his mid twenties) was depicted by sculptors with a beard. It is more probable that Nefertiti perished from some disease, possibly from the plague that ravaged much of Egypt during those times. As for Tutankhamun, his mummy was examined just a week or two ago (early April 2005) with sophisticated medical technology and no evidence was discovered to support the theory that he was murdered. In fact, I believe that most egyptologists now regard him to have been Akhenaten's son by another lesser wife (ie., not Nefertiti), which is not surprising since he needed to have a son to succeed him and he and Nefertiti had failed in that regard. They "only" managed to have 6 daughters!

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)

This was the second book of Osman's that I read and I wish I had read it first. This book essentially begins his argument that Christianity is the product of Ancient Egyptian religion and...as the title suggests, Moses and Akhenaten are one in the same. Osman does provide the reader with a convincing argument and I find his books to be a good source for "alternative" history buffs. However, I feel that he tends to lose the reader with all of the name changing going on in this particular book. (Akenaten is Moses, so and so is Soloman, etc, etc) This was, in my opinion, the least readable of his books...but by no means a bad or unreadable book. If you're going to read Osman's books, I would suggest starting with this one and then moving on to "The Hebrew Pharoahs of Egypt" followed by "Christianity - An Ancient Egyptian Religion."

This book had my attention from beginning to end. It presented a very interesting hypothesis about Moses and Joseph, both of OT fame. It strays off the conventional path of not just Egyptology but of Judaism/Chrisitianity. I've discussed it with quite a few people and got some heat about it, but I loved the book. It was a fresh and different outlook on both Moses and Akhenaten and whether you believe it or not, it is definetely food for thought. Also, it was well written to boot.Read it for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

I've read most of the other works on this subject (his and others) and eagerly awaited this one. Honestly I was disappointed, because I suspect this is a reprint of an earlier edition. It serves largely to reinforce what has already been presented so I can recommend it only if the reader is first encountering the material. Although it has some photos, at many points the text would be improved with topical graphs or maps. How tough could that be? I'll now be watching for his next effort.

If I overstand correctly, this is a 2002 revised reprint of the 1990 book "Moses, Pharaoh of Egypt: The Mystery of Akhenaten Resolved". 190 regular text pages. With an additional 7-part appendix of 54 pages, which sections I recommend reading when referenced respectively.



Ahmed Osman reveals various errors of other Egyptologists, e.g. why they have guessed the time frame of the Moses Exodus wrongly, that they didn't consider various kinds of co-regencies of Pharaos and why Akhenaten had to be coded as Moses after his fall from power.



He is very convincing in this and more, mixing circumstantial evidence with what I consider hard evidence. In contrast to some other readers I don't mind the circumstantial evidence in this specific book. For the simple reason that even that makes much more sense than what is popularly assumed about Akhenaten/Moses, i.e. even should the author be not quite correct on some issues, this book is a step forward in the correct direction. Of both, revelations and method of scientific progress. As a RastafarI I don't like too much of magic as the basis of belief in religion and appreciated the author's explanation of Moses' magic rod, supposedly turning into a serpent, as having lost in the translation and alteration, meaning something entirely different, non-magical. Ahmed Osman takes it for granted that the reader already has been revealed to that Akhenaten/Moses was Black and that in ancient language, "Ethiopia" may stand for any Black kingdom, not necessarily the country by that name.



Most certainly, I would like to get all the Afrocentrist authors of the past decades at a round table. They sound really convincing in their specific fields of expertise, yet they tend to contradict each other. They tend to check their findings with the establishment (which usually isn't that difficult to prove wrong), not necessarily with each other. Which doesn't make any one of the Afrocentrists wrong in principal as a necessity. It just shows that further research is necessary for the fine tuning. For example Ahmed Osman puts the Moses Exodus in the convincingly correct time frame of Akhenaten, again convincingly chosing a later date. However, just as convincingly Robin Walker, author of When We Ruled: The Ancient and Medieval History of Black Civilisations revealed a wrong time frame for all of ancient Egypt, saying, the further you go back in Egyptian history, the more time has been concealed by Western egyptologists. According to him Akhenaten ruled from 1501-1474 BCE, i.e. long before Ahmen Osman's suggestion of Akhenaten's birth in 1394 BCE. Which would approximately push back that Exodus at the original estimate. Expressions like "mixed Egyptian-Israelite blood" (as in ancient Black context) may be criticized anyway for touching racist notions, but specifically Nana Banchie Darkwah, author of The Africans Who Wrote the Bible (which I highly recommend reading in tandem with this book) would disagree that there would be much of a separation to be "mixable" anyway. (Not to mention that the latter calls the Pharao "Akenten" as the supposed real spelling/pronunciation.)



This book doesn't seem to be free from bias, responsible for a potential clouding of scientific judgement: It seems to have an issue with anything homosexual and the like. Which becomes clear when the author says that other Egyptologists would have attempted to discredit Akhenaten as having been gay. As a historian he should have known that the judgement of "homosexuality" as being automatically something to get discredited by is post-ancient Egypt. The picture of a statue he provides, which has been the source for the homosexual claim is indeed a very weak argument. It looks as if having been largely dissolved in acid rain, not making it possible to identify anything. However, that is also true for the suggestion of Ahmed Osman, what this piece of art is supposed to represent instead... I am not an expert in this, I think that homosexual claim for Akhenaten goes beyond that statue. What really seems to cloud the author though are his remarks about another statue he provides a picture of. A naked one, with no depicted genitalia. He's saying, those who say, he didn't have any, are wrong. Well, of course! Someone said that? However, he in turn claims, this statue would be unfinished: the artist didn't have time to make the clothes yet around his waist. Any layperson can see how absurd this claim is. Especially, since a clothed statue of Akhenaten is depicted directly next to the naked one. The naked statue has fully developed legs and a dent in the genitalia region. Both are covered by the clothes at the other statue. It would neither be possible to make clothes of stone above either, nor would it make sense for the artist first to fully make the legs, than to undo that. The real purpose of the statue has to do with that, what Ahmed Osman closed his eyes to when captioning the very first picture in the book, of a double statuette of Nefertiti and Akhenaten: "No physical defect mars Akhenaten's appearance." I would agree with that literally only. He probably was referring to the face. Yet, his body IS unusual: It depicts a 4 months pregnancy belly, and WITH clothes, something misses, which Nefertiti is shown with: a bulge under her clothes in the genitalia region. Although some statues of Akhenaten (and Nefertiti) are even more pronounced than this one in this respect, the general idea is very much recognizable: Gender-bending. Before monotheism, virtually all over the world, "homosexuals" and gender benders of any kind were seen as mediators "between the genders" and with that metaphorically between humans and the godly world. That's why shamans, healers, priests etc. often were "gender bending" in one form or the other. Akhenaten represents the "missing link" between pre-monotheistic approach and monotheism. In fact, the ancient Egyptian sign of life, the ankh/nkwa also depicts "both genitals" in one. A sign to have become/remained important for Akhenaten. I am not claiming (or disclaiming) that Akhenaten (or Nefertiti) were homosexuals; that would be a specific late 19th century German concept anyway, in this literal wording of the mid-20th century. I am reasoning the intentional symbolism expressed in ancient Egyptian religious art, especially at the time of Akhenaten. As, of course, a pregnant belly of a male is as symbolic as a missing penis.

I wouldn't really have subtracted an entire star for that. I did that for another reason: This obvious misjudgement, even omission of knowledge reveals Ahmed Osman as biased. Biased to the point of harboring the potential of absurd claims. Exactly that, what he criticizes about other Egyptologists. It hasn't anything to do with what anyone might think about gender benders, it has everything to do with letting that influence their scientific approach. If THAT has caused wrong judgement, what else might have?