Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

Oedipus and Akhnaton: Myth and History

Rate this book
Book by Immanuel Velikovsky

255 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published January 1, 1960

5 people are currently reading
239 people want to read

About the author

Immanuel Velikovsky

83 books127 followers
Immanuel Velikovsky was a Russian-born American independent scholar, best known as the author of a number of controversial books reinterpreting the events of ancient history, in particular the US bestseller Worlds in Collision, published in 1950. Earlier, he played a role in the founding of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel, and was a respected psychiatrist and psychoanalyst.

His books use comparative mythology and ancient literary sources (including the Bible) to argue that Earth has suffered catastrophic close-contacts with other planets (principally Venus and Mars) in ancient times. In positioning Velikovsky among catastrophists including Hans Bellamy, Ignatius Donnelly, and Johann Gottlieb Radlof[2], the British astronomers Victor Clube and Bill Napier noted ". . . Velikovsky is not so much the first of the new catastrophists . . . ; he is the last in a line of traditional catastrophists going back to mediaeval times and probably earlier." Velikovsky argued that electromagnetic effects play an important role in celestial mechanics. He also proposed a revised chronology for ancient Egypt, Greece, Israel and other cultures of the ancient Near East. The revised chronology aimed at explaining the so-called "dark age" of the eastern Mediterranean (ca. 1100 – 750 BCE) and reconciling biblical history with mainstream archeology and Egyptian chronology.

In general, Velikovsky's theories have been vigorously rejected or ignored by the academic community. Nonetheless, his books often sold well and gained an enthusiastic support in lay circles, often fuelled by claims of unfair treatment for Velikovsky by orthodox academia. The controversy surrounding his work and its reception is often referred to as "the Velikovsky affair".

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
49 (40%)
4 stars
43 (35%)
3 stars
16 (13%)
2 stars
5 (4%)
1 star
8 (6%)
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
6 reviews
September 2, 2013
Although maligned for his theories regarding major astronomical events in historical memory, Velikovsky, a veritable polymath, seems more persuasive regarding his questioning of the accepted chronology of the ancient world, and especially ancient Egypt.

This book does not deal with difficult chronological issues but deals with the common themes running through stories of Oedipus and Akhnaton and builds a case the the 'myth' of Oedipus is actually based on historical events during Pharaoh Akhnaton. The book supports its theory with numerous footnotes and, upon finishing reading the book, one comes away with a feeling that Velikovsky may just be correct in many of his assumptions.

The book is a pleasure to read but the reader must pay close attention to the various names of the successive Pharaohs and their various family members. One gets a sense of the religious conflicts during the time of the 18th Dynasty and the incestuous practices of the ruling families.

I would recommend the the book highly.. But reader beware.. you may just get addicted to the history of this era and find yourself deeply (and pleasurably) enmeshed in the controversies surrounding the chronologies of the various Egyptian dynasties and the synchronization of Egyptian history with the histories of surrounding states.
Profile Image for Phillip.
Author 2 books65 followers
May 9, 2021
Velikovsky is kind of like reading a version of the History Channel's Ancient Aliens--which is not a show I recommend. It can be moderately entertaining, but the bulk of the argument is wrong, poor scholarship, and built on rhetorical tricks. In this book Velikovsky tries to "prove" that the Greek Oedipus legend has its origins in the history of Pharaoh Akhenaton, who was an actual historical person and did become notorious for trying to completely remake the religious, social, and aesthetic life of Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty. And Velikovsky points out a ton of similarities between the history and the myth.

The problem is that he's wrong about a ton of his claims.

Now, Velikovsky being wrong breaks down into two main categories of wrongness. One is misrepresenting facts, data, or sources; the other is setting up a hypothetical and then taking that as historical fact (i.e., the Ancient Aliens approach). As an example of the first type of wrongness, Velikovsky claims that Amenhotep son of Hupa was 80 in the 34th year of Amenhotep III's reign and that the old man lived through the end of Akhenaton's reign. The problem is that Amenhotep son of Hupa died around age 69, a few years before the beginning of Akhenaton's reign. And I checked the source Velikovsky cites for the claim that the old man turned 80 in the 34th year--W.C. Hayes' articles in the 3rd volume of The Journal of Near Eastern Studies from 1951--and it doesn't say anything about Amenhotep son of Hupa's age, or how long he lived. All Hayes says is that in the 34th year, Amenhotep son of Hupa was active and gave several jugs of wine, fat, and meat for a festival. Velikovsky completely misrepresented what his source was saying in an academically and intellectually irresponsible way to try and support his untenable thesis.

As an example of the second mode of wrongness, Velikovsky points out that we know little about Akhenaton's youth, though he probably wasn't brought up in the main pharaonic court. From this minor fact, Velikovsky imagines that Amenhotep III (Akhenaton's father) received an oracle telling him to keep his son away, and that consequently the young Akhenaton wandered the Near East as a kind of exile, possibly even having managed to escape an attempt on his life at his father's command. This all corresponds with the Oedipus legend. But it's also just stuff Velikovsky made up, for which there's no historical evidence. And actually the historical evidence that does exist (though I'm not sure how much of the evidence currently available was available in 1960 when the book came out) suggests Akhenaton was raised in a palace in a different city than the capital, and he may have served as a priest. But having imagined this oracle and attempt to kill Akhenaton, Velikovsky then returns to it repeatedly in the book (at least twice more) as though it's historical fact. In other words, he has spun a completely fictitious tale and then treated it as historical truth. At times he even admits that he's engaging in pure speculation with virtually no basis in reality. For instance, when Velikosky imagines an Egyptian Antigone burying Smenkhare against Ay's will (again, a thing that there's no solid evidence for happening at all) he even describes his argument as "no more than sheer surmise." So Velikovsky even admits that he's made up substantial points in his argument--though he then goes on to treat the existence of an Egyptian Antigone as historical fact proving a connection to the myth.
https://youtu.be/YOb4zYzans4
Profile Image for Joy.
1,409 reviews23 followers
March 10, 2012
This is a more speculative book, as Velikovsky says himself. He notes that the myth of Oedipus, today known from Greek authors, contains cultural elements that are not Greek. For example, the family is being punished because Oedipus's father chose a boy as lover. This was an accepted part of ancient Greek life, certainly not something to be punished by the Greek gods and fate for generations. Then there is the presence of a Sphinx, an Egyptian figure. This led him to look at the other Thebes, the Egyptian city instead of the Greek one.

Provided you don't dismiss out of hand Velikovsky's theory that the legend of Oedipus was based on the life and tangled family of Akhnaton, the line of parallels between them that he lays out is striking. He also uses his favored technique of clarifying shadowy areas in each story using elements from the parallel story and from archaeology. The result is as interesting as I expect from this author.
10.4k reviews33 followers
May 24, 2024
THE FOLLOW-UP TO ‘AGES IN CHAOS, VOLUME I’

Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) was a Russian, Israeli, and American writer, researcher, and psychoanalyst. His book, ‘Worlds in Collision,’ was first published in 1950 by Macmillan and was a bestseller (at least in part because it seemed to provide support for certain biblical miracles), but strong negative criticism from the mainstream scientific community caused Macmillan to stop publishing it, and to transfer the book rights to Doubleday.

He wrote in the Foreword of this 1960 book, “Two decades ago… I read Freud’s last book, ‘Moses and Monotheism,’ and was prompted to read more about Akhnaton… Soon I was struck by some close parallels between this Egyptian king and the legendary Oedipus… My work on Oedipus an Akhnaton, in the form of many notes and a short draft, rested all that time… More than eighteen years passed … The delay was of great benefit to the work. In the intervening years several important papers… disclose archaeological facts from which I could draw added support for my theory… [This book] properly follows ‘Ages in Chaos, Volume I’… The present short book tells this story and that of the tragic events at the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty. In its wake another volume of ‘Ages in Chaos,’ too long postponed, will be concluded, bringing my historical reconstruction to the advent of Alexander.”

He notes, “It is true that many myths and legends reflect happenings in nature… that disrupt the even flow of the days and years; and to prove this I presented a vast array of folkloric material in ‘Worlds in Collision.’ The Oedipus legend, however, does not belong in this category: the human character of the drama is too obvious; the mental agony in the conflict between ‘must’ and ‘must not/ is too clearly expressed to permit the origin of this tragedy to be ascribed to the work of unchained elements, still less to daily occurrences in the sky and on the earth.” (Pg. 32-33)

He acknowledges, “Thus, if we are bent on finding a close resemblance between the legendary Oedipus and the historical Akhnaton, we must admit at this point that the evidence does not appear convincing nor the case strong, and woefully inadequate they are…. If all that we can show is that [Akhnaton] spent his youth away from Thebes and that he took over the kingdom after his mother rules for a short time alone, then we are trying to … buy a kingdom with few silver coins.” (Pg. 59)

He states, “If we were to look for the historical Tiresias, the blind seer, a very old wise man, in the days of our historical setting, we would select Amenhotep, son of Hapu. Actually there is no one else who fills the role as a venerated seer in the days of Amenhotep III and his son Akhnaton.” (Pg. 148)

He notes, “Herodotus’ King Anysis occupied the throne of Egypt toward the end of the dynasty which is known s the Eighteenth; he was blind he went into exile, and these are also major circumstances in the life of Oedipus, king of Thebes.” (Pg. 154)

He suggests, “Freud did not realize that his two heroes---Oedipus, of his first book, and Akhnaton, of his last book---were one person. In recognizing the Oedipus mechanism or complex in man, ancient and modern, Freud showed an insight that made him the slayer of the monster hidden in our unconscious minds, and thus a patron-healer of all the maladjusted. Freud was predestined to make this discovery concerning the structure of human character at an age when he still walked on al fours.” (Pg. 243) Later, he adds, “When Freud approached Akhnaton he left behind all his experience and all his analytical tools. In analysis this is called repression…” (Pg. 248)

He concludes, “It does not seem to me that every question needs---or has---an answer. I have asked, instead, the Sphinx on the cliff in which direction to go. But were it my misfortune to stand before the Sphinx with the dire prospect of never entering Thebes, I should reply to her riddle” ‘It is Oedipus.’” (Pg. 254-255)

Those wanting more information about Velikovsky’s theories---both pro and con---might want to read the books, ‘Scientists Confront Velikovsky,’ and ‘Scientists Confront Scientists Who Confront Velikovsky.’
Profile Image for Benjamin Woollin.
2 reviews
February 14, 2022
This was a very strange read. As a huge lover of ancient history I was very intrigued by this book when I picked it up by chance and thought I’d give it a go. For a general book it was a genuine page turned that I struggled to put down and tried to read it whenever I got the chance, Velikovsky has an engaging writing style that really captivated me and helped me get through it which I think is one of the books highlights.

The main reason why it was so engaging was, however, the absurd pseudo history employed by velikovsky in the book. His historical method leaves a lot to be desired, as does the dates approach but for a book written well over 60 years ago that has to be expected. The overall conclusion was weak at best, and based more on presumption than verified archaeological and scientific evidence, which again was why I found it such an interesting read to really understand the method used.

It’s a great page turner that is only marred by the sad fact that a lot of the historical presumptions are nothing more than presumptions that aren’t backed up by peer reviewed content or engagement with contrasting opinions. This is exactly why I loved it.
Profile Image for Bernie4444.
2,464 reviews11 followers
December 24, 2022
History, what if they got it wrong?

From the author of “Worlds in Collision” (1950) and “Age is in Chaos: From Exodus to King Akhenaton”, we see compelling evidence that just as Henry Schliemann may have found “Troy”, Velikovsky may have found the real Akhenaton.

We find a lot of pictures and supporting evidence that the timeline of the pharaohs may have been a tad off. And in the process of finding the actual timeline, we also find an intriguing mystery. As we search through the Greek epics to find if there's been a Troy war did Odysseus exist, we must also ask ourselves what about the legend of Oedipus?

I will not go into the details of how this legend may be based on a historical truth as that's why you are buying the book. I can tell you that you will never look at history the same way afterward.

For a better understanding of Akhenaton, you may want to read Sigmund Freud's “Moses and Monotheism.”
Profile Image for Samantha Rooney.
334 reviews4 followers
August 11, 2021
I truly tried to finish this book. But despite it being a “non fiction” book, seems to have more in common with books like “The Da Vinci Code” by Dan Brown or modern day conspiracy bloggers. After 3000 years, and a systematic destruction of Akhnaten’s (and to a lesser extant Tutanhkamun) monuments, what evidence that still exists doesn’t lend itself to a full story of what happened in their lifetimes. And they weren’t the only royal family in history to intermarry, and have health issues both mental and physical because of it.

So yes, the tale of Oedipus could have been influenced by Ahknaten or any other royal family. Oedipus doesn’t become a better story solely based on whether its true or not. Or by being linked to a true historical event.
96 reviews1 follower
July 30, 2023
This is the literature version of "ancient aliens", so take anything you read with a grain of salt.
That being said, it is still an interesting read.
Would i recommend buying it new ? no.
But if you find it cheap somewhere randomly, it is not a bad book to read.
Profile Image for J. W. Thompson.
Author 0 books3 followers
March 14, 2025
A great read with some very intriguing arguments, but the chapter delving into Freud irritated me, it was entirely unnecessary.
46 reviews11 followers
April 21, 2017
"Broadly speaking, Velikovsky argues that the Pharaonic house and family of Amenhotep III through Ay of the 18th Dynasty in New Kingdom Egypt provides the historical inspiration for the Greek myth of the Theban rulers from Laios through Kreon." So says the author of one of the web pages that examines Velikovsky's theory that the myth of Oedipus, who killed his father, answered the riddle of the sphinx, and married his mother is derived from an Eqyptian renegade pharaoh and his family. It was one of the books we weeded from Granger's library because it was too old and is now out of print. Apparently, from the number of sources that still debate this theory on the web, it's still a hot question and fascinating to many people.
18 reviews1 follower
March 5, 2009
this was a really interesting book. Velikovsky does some rather ocnvincing speculation that the Egyptian Pharoah Akenhaton (the one who went crazy and changed age old traditions of religion and art) was the real world inspiration for the Greek character Oedipus.

A worthwhile read (if you can find it!) if you have any interest in Greek Mythology, or Ancient Egyptian history. It's like ancient conspiracy theory!!
Profile Image for Audun Forgard.
29 reviews8 followers
April 3, 2015
Was quite hesistant to pick up this book by the great author and scholar Velikovsky. IIts taking it too far Ithought. But as I read through the pages a whole other story unveiled itself. And me not being very knowledgeable in the study of pharaoes and egypt and all that jazz could after a while think that this is a very interesting perspective after all. I wonder if there are anyone who has picked up on the trail left here in this book?
Profile Image for Rae.
3,934 reviews
May 8, 2008
Velikovsky asks why the Oedipus legend has a sphinx outside the city of Thebes, when the sphinx is not a part of Greek mythology. He then attempts to connect the Greek legends with historical events in Egypt involving the pharaoh Akhnaton and his family. I was fascinated by this book and whether it is true or not is irrelevant because it makes you reexamine what you think you know about history.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.