Talk:Great Hymn to the Aten

"Our Father" hymn
This is not a genre of hymnography or standard type I have ever heard of. If it is, I think we'd need a cite to establish that. Similarly, if the rest of the analysis is not OR we need that cited as well. We can't engage in original analysis here.

I cut the claim that the quote represents 5% of the hymn, since it seemed inaccurate to me. The statement about the style is also a judgment call reflecting a POV; in any translation there are stylistic decisions that must be made and it goes without saying that not all features reflected in an original language are translatable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to check out the Length of the original translation. From "Akhenaten", by Cyril Aldred, c 1988, the quotes are from paragraphs 5,6 of about 8 and 1/2. Maybe 20 percent of original. I am not sure this is the complete translation. A later work of the Akhenaten material, is definitely of better, "Egyptian" style, and I suppose the length is probably correct. But I thought it was longer than these 8 1/2 paragraphs. Anyhow you are helping deceive people that this is the entire Hymn, and the style, I aint really sure of. My book (of the later 1999 or so translation), is packed away in a box for the more "literal transliteration".  ArizonaDeserts...--Mmcannis 05:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, 20% is more like it, but I don't see the relevance. The quote is introduced with a statement that it's an excerpt; there's no deception here either deliberate or inadvertent, and it's quite uncivil of you to say there is and that I'm contributing to it. I'm really unsure about a quote of this length being included as fair use anyway. I believe what's there is still covered under copyright, and a more recent one doesn't improve that situation. I was tempted to replace the excerpt with Budge.


 * A literal transliteration pretty clearly isn't what's wanted. I assume you meant translation. Egyptian syntax clearly doesn't work in English, and what does work in English to convey a feel for the original is again a judgment call that a Wikipedia editor should not make. (A cite that gives reason for favoring one over the other is a different story, of course.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Pronoun: us"
Second sentence:
 * "It is attributed to Pharaoh Akhenaten himself, and gives us a glimpse of th... [...]", my emphasis.

I don't think it is supposed to be "us" in there, because who is that, really? /Tense (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Objections to "monotheism"
Roman Catholicism is remarkable similar, with Jesus, the Virgin Mary and all the Saints. What's the difference? Aldo L (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Talk pages aren't forums to discuss issues like this, I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The previous Editor didn't really qualify his statement (I don't think IMHO (in my honest opinion)}. (i.e. His objecttion, was to the Christian relationship?). The word "monotheism" is used in the article, as it should be used, and thus any discussion of monotheism is valid. But it is nice, (I think) that monotheism doesn't wiki over to a separate article about some other religious "stuff", i.e. monotheism. The statement is simply (implied) that the multiplicity of "gods" was being superceded by a great Hymn to the Aten. For some reason, I was thinking of existentialism when I first saw this Talk Page response.... I am an 'existentialist', but not the type defined by the historical articles... However, I think Humans, their human history has a major "work" of existentialism (human relationship with the world), the Epic of Gilgamesh. I Now see that the Great Hymn to the Aten, and Akhenaten, His re-Definition of the World he lived in, was...., the Other, Great example of Human Existentialism... I think the actual wikipedia articles on "historical" existentialism, are all probably misguided, and should be definded as 'historical'.. I think the Epic of Gilgamesh, and this great: Great Hymn to the Aten, are two examples of works, that give us a view into 'human existence', our "existential place in the universe"... (earth)...Mmcannis (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ironic copyvio
I've just deleted most of the text as copyvio from p 105 of Egypt and the Egyptians By Douglas J. Brewer, Emily Teeter which ironically left out the important fact that the authors consider Atenism to be henotheism. I'm worried about the text of the hymn itself as it's almost certainly copyvio also. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issues
As a look at the edit history shows, I've been concerned about pov issues here and I raised them at WP:NPOVN. Also some OR issues. I've tried to deal with the issue of whether this is a hymn as we understand hymns as a poem. Still figuring out what to do about the excerpt. @@@@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 05:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The common description is hymn in scholarly works. The shorter hymn to the Aten makes mention of singing and musicians (in the temples of Akhenaten and the Ben Ben shrine - according to John A. Wilson's translation, used in Miriam Leichtheim standard work). Possibly also because of the ps104 issue (psalms were sung) maybe the use of "hymn" isn't questioned too much. John Darnell, who currently holds the chair of Egyptology at Yale, asserts it was sung. ("Tutankhamun's Armies: Battle and Conquest During Ancient Egypt's Late Eighteenth Dynasty", p. 41, ISBN: 978-0-471-74358-3) The revised text seems ok, though maybe the ps104 issue could show a greater spread of opinion. (Miriam Lichtheim treats the text "as a beautiful statement of the doctrine of the One God" whilst taking a negative view of a direct link between the biblical and Egyptian texts) Yt95 (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Useful comments. More important than the Ps104 business is reflecting more about what Eygptologists think about this text, whatever we call it. Loads of sources, but I don't have time. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Miriam Lichtheim in a footnote to the hymn writes "Though the hymn was undoubtedly composed for recitation by the king, inscribed in the tomb of Ay, it was adapted to recitation by the courtier." (Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol II, p. 100, fn. 4). Why she appears to think it wasn't sung I don't know. The absence of metrical structure? Wouldn't seem to be a problem to me or anyone who familiar with sacred liturgical monastic music. As an Ancient Egyptian wrote "I have heard those songs that are in the ancient tombs" (see Harper's Songs). As for ps 104, yes it is one of the usual arguments put forward by those who think that Atenism (and other religious texts) lean towards monotheism. Donald B. Redford wrote several years ago:
 * Monotheism, polytheism and henotheism are constructs of the Judeo-Christian tradition. They manifest a mindset quite different from that of ancient man. These concepts, along with such pejorative categories as heathens, pagans and idolaters, reflect a rationalization of history that seems natural to us but was not characteristic of ancient cultures. The use of such terms assumes a period of ignorance followed by a period of revelation. The revelation is always thought to have occurred in the remote past. How the Supernatural operates in the present, long after the revelation, is never really addressed. For ancient man, the situation was quite different. For him, the Supernatural never ceased to interact with the human community and the cosmos. There was no great revelation. If there was ever a break between time past and present, it was marked by creation itself: chaos before, order afterwards. (BAR, Aspects of Monotheism, 1996)
 * Anyhow these are just my talk page comments. Yt95 (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have tried to edit the article to incorporate Yt95 research and references. Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution. I have made some changes to the revised text. Neither Miriam Leichman nor John A. Wilson say anything about the text being sung - the former in another footnote would seem to lean towards it being spoken rather than sung (will double check the book tonight). The short hymn to the Aten does indeed mention musicians and singers but, (even though I think that it at least lends support to the idea that it was sung), it needs a reliable published source that says so in order to put it in the article.  The issue of the King changing A.E religion from polytheism to Atenism (suggestive of monotheism) has always been subject to controversy so I think in the lead should reflect that. I have reordered some other text to avoid the lead being seen to push a particular point of view which I hope you will not find controversial. Yt95 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Hymn to the Aten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414205016/http://www.rostau.org.uk/Aye/index.html to http://www.rostau.org.uk/Aye/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Redford vs Akhenaten, & Hymn to the Sun
Quoting Donald B. Redford on Akhenaten is like quoting God about the Devil. Redford didn't like Akhenaten, considered him to be 'unmanly' and a 'heretical freak'. Redford belonged to the grumpy curmudgeon school of archeology. He wished Akhenaten had been one of the warrior pharaohs who put up a lot of statues and temples so Redford could write about them. Redford, who wrote a 1984 book on Akhenaten, thought of the Pharaoh as a sort of proto-hippy, a freak who wanted to revolutionize Egyptian religion and art. Also, he didn't like all the attention Akhenaten got from non-archeologists and laymen, poaching on Redford's territory. Redford doesn't want to give Akenaten credit for anything, regardless of the 'Hymn to the Sun' or the actual physical evidence of the Pharaoh's art innovations. He wants badly to see Akhenaten as a failure and a fraud, but presents little evidence to support his prejudices. Akhenaten did fail to establish permanently his Aten cult in Egypt, too many priests made good livings from the worship of many gods. He seems upset that Akhenaten's religion didn't have a social program for the poor and sick, like some forms of Christianity later did, even though the Aten religion was only going on for about 20 years, hardly enough time to develop a full-blown theology. Redford argues that the Aten was in reality Akhenaten's alter ego, symbolic of his own absolute rule. But many Pharaohs had absolute rule, which would hardly be an outlier.

In fact, all the speculation in Redford's book and the article about Akhenaten's 'Hymn to the Sun' is out of bounds and merely opinion. There's not enough evidence to say anything for sure as to whether or not the Hebrews were influenced by Akhenaten's One God, or by the Hymn to the Aten. Nevertheless, it's a mighty coincidence of convergence. Give the Pharaoh some credit for initiating something way before others did in the Near East. Philip Glass's opera 'Akhenaten' is mentioned in the article, but no mention is made of the book and 1954 American movie called, 'The Egyptian' about Akhenaten, which, no doubt to Redford's fury, posits Akhenaten as an early and misunderstood New Ager and pacifist, caught in an era when people only understood war, political maneuvers and the old gods. 47.232.145.208 (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)