It is tempting to imagine, given the traditional Christian narratives of conversion and revelation, that a prophet like Zarathushtra, for example, could bring religious change, based on divinely inspired truth, to any people regardless of historical situation. In reality, successful revolutions require popular support and even the most compelling argument must find ready minds open to its message in order to take root and blossom. Smith explains the significance of rhetorical pushes toward Jewish monotheism and its context in a populace for which it is a natural development within familiar bounds:

Monotheistic statements do not herald a new age of religion but explain Yahwistic monolatry in absolute terms. As rhetoric, monotheism reinforced Israel’s exclusive relationship with its deity. Monotheism is a kind of inner community discourse establishing a distance from outsiders; it uses the language of Yahweh’s exceptional divine status beyond and in all reality ('there are no other deities but the Lord') to absolutize Yahweh’s claim on Israel and to express Israel’s ultimate fidelity to Yahweh. Monotheism is therefore not a new cultural step but expresses Israel’s relationship with Yahweh.¹

This final thought is integral to our discussion: “Monotheism is therefore not a new cultural step”; it supports a notion of proto-monotheism as a direct antecedent to more familiar monotheism. It is reasonably clear that, like the Indo-Iranian and ancient Iranian religions, the beliefs and practices of the Israelites directly informed and facilitated the development of monotheistic Judaism. The point is made and the evidence supports the suggestion, but it is important to our discussion to consider one additional case. In order to emphasize this final notion that such religious developments must find a ready and willing reception to take hold, we must examine the case of the so-called 'Heretic King' of Egypt: Akhenaten.

The case of Akhenaten is a clear example of a situation in which even the overwhelming social, political, religious, economic, and military powers of a divine monarch could not sustain the change brought by the sort of grand religious revolution that would 'overthrow' an established polytheistic system in favor of monotheism. Erik Hornung describes the unique position of the Pharaoh among other religious figures:

Indeed, Akhenaten was the only founder of a religion to have all the instruments of state power at his disposal, and we should assume that he employed them ruthlessly to realize his ideas. Only underground opposition was possible, and 'lamentations' gave expression to a widespread sentiment among the common people and the former elite.²

Vital to our discussion is the fact that despite the overwhelming power of Akhenaten, including his divine status within the established religion of Egypt³, his monotheistic 'revolution' died with him. There are two specific features of this religious project which could offer light on our understanding of the development of monotheism: the first is the process by which Akhenaten executed his revolution; the second is the religious response after its collapse.

A casual survey of ancient Egyptian history reveals the immense power of the state and the Pharaohs who ruled it. It is the exercise of this power, in the form of monumental building projects, which has characterized western conceptions of the ancient empire.⁴ Hornung explains that “...in the case of Akhenaten, we note curiously little activity aside from his building project at Karnak. One senses that he was expending all his energy on the formulation of his 'teaching,' his attempt to remodel the world.”⁵ While the process by which the Pharaoh developed his religion on a personal level is lost to history⁶ we do have some sense of the official processes by which he elevated the Aten to a monotheistic status foreign to the long-established Egyptian religion.⁷ Archaeologist Donald B. Redford summarizes results of these processes:

Even the casual observer will be struck first and foremost by the negative thrust of Akhenaten's reform of the cultus. He excised from the traditional religion much more than he added...The sun god Akhenaten championed, of course, enjoyed no mythology; after the early months of the reign he was not even permitted an anthropomorphic depiction...The marvelously complex world of the Beyond is banished from the minds of men. No truth can come from anyone but the king, and his truth is entirely apodictic: no gods but the sun, no processional temples, no cultic acts but the rudimentary offering, no cult images, no anthropomorphisms, no myths, no concept of the ever-changing manifestation of a divine world.⁸

This is important to our understanding of how narratives of abandoning established polytheism for a new monotheistic religion would have played out. It is unlikely that such radical change would be tolerated from the likes of a Zarathushtra and in this case were only possible because of the uniqueness of the Pharaoh's powerful situation. The lack of strength which caused the monotheism imposed by Akhenaten to fail to outlive its founder proves true enough the saying 'you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink'.

The response of Egyptians to the religion of Akhenaten after his death was not violent revolution but a 'return' to the religious state that had been established long before the 'Heretic Pharaoh'.⁹ E. O. James attempts to explain this response, writing that “...in spite of its being in line with the expanding imperial power of the State, it made no permanent impression on the nation as a whole. The Aton was too remote to have a popular appeal.”¹⁰ James' focus on the nature of the deity blinds him to the situation of drastic change described by Hornung which made the religion too far removed from what the populace had known for so long. This must be taken into consideration when examining the cases of the Israelites and ancient Iranians. It is tempting to focus solely on the nature of the deity, as removed from the context of a living religion, and lose sight of the significance of the systems and worldviews which have structured the framework of that deity's existence for innumerable generations.

It is also important to acknowledge that just as the Babylonian Exile had a catalyzing effect on the development of Jewish monotheism, so too did the institutionalization of Akhenaten's religion affect 'traditional' Egyptian beliefs. Hornung explains that although the reign and religion of Akhenaten would be forgotten,

...[They] were not just transitory phenomena, as they are so often made out to be. The challenge he posed compelled succeeding generations to rethink questions that had seemed resolved, just as are received new impulses from this debate. As Jan Assmann has put it, “The effect of Amarna religion was to clarify, not to reform. The traditional religion became only ever more self-conscious as a result of this confrontation with its antithesis.”¹¹

Though it might be an oversimplification, the analogy of individual strangers meeting seems appropriate to describe this effect: among 'our own' we are not aware of the boundaries and character of certain identities but in articulating them to the 'Other' with whom we do not share such identities, we are offered the novel opportunity of self-conscious reflection which might reinforce or clarify our comprehension of edges those identities. It is reasonable to assume that this clarifying effect vis-à-vis an encounter with the 'Other' would have, in the case of post-exilic Israel, like Egypt, crystallized traditional beliefs rather than facilitating a departure from familiar religious systems.¹²