Think about the "beloved" King David who "slew his tens of thousands". He is not held accountable for this, but only the sin of adultery. So, we should look for another explanation of why Akhenaten blew it in the role of Moses. David was a type of conquering Joshua. Therefore, no slaughter was too much to achieve that purpose. On the other hand, the main goal of a Moses type was to save lives and not take them, with one exception as noted.
Another way to look at the Amarna Period is as an ancient "Passion Play". It was expected that those placed in the most important roles would improvise a litte. But Akhenaten ad libbed too much and disrupted the ability of other actors to perform. Perhaps Smenkhkare, Tut, and Aye, also were guilty of inappropriate acting, or their attempts to compensating for Akhenaten were considered ineffective.
Regardless, the 19th Dynasty kings thought it best to scrap the whole thing and start over rather than risk that the Amarna kings would become part of accepted tradtion to be repeated later. There was however a minority that upheld the legitimacy of Akhenaten and this is the opinion that actually made it into the Torah. (A similar suppression had been applied to Hatshepsut.)
Responses To This Message
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.