cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> We are told what these meanings are by experts but
> some seem to be inconsistent. If the kings are
> paramount and deities then why not in the PT's?
> If they aren't deities here then where are they
> deities? Worshipping dead kings is not quite the
> same as saying such and such a king is God of such
> and such or is a powerful God whom can help or
> intercede or destoy.

---

First of all, even the ancient Egyptians did not see their kings as gods of the Ennead (in life or after death) - the sheer fact they died precluded them from being such immortal beings. As V. A. Tobin stated, in defining the theological aspects of this issue:

"What then are we to make of the royal mytho-theology which seems to have been so carefully formulated in the Old Kingdom? Such expressions seem to indicate the full divinity of the monarch as the Horus incarnate and the Son of Ra. The answer here must surely lie in the very mythic nature of such symbols. Mythically speaking and as expressed in the cult there can be no doubt that the king was regarded as a deity. His very presence was the effective means of maintaining Ma'at and even mediating to the land the blessings of the great gods. Such, however, was and remained a mythic expression.

For the Egyptian mind the power of the divine was in some mysterious way inherent within the person of the Pharaoh. He was in fact the 'good god' (nTr nfr), but he was not the 'Great God' (nTr aA). Such a title was reserved only for the gods who resided in the heavens and who were not seen by man, only apprehended in their manifestations in nature or their revelations in the cultic ritual. The king, himself a mythic expression of the divinity of the realm of the beyond, was not himself one of the great gods of Egypt. He was a symbol of their presence; he was a "token of the efficacious power of the creator god in the world." In himself, however, the monarch was a mortal human being, the mythic symbol of the divine presence, and even one who after his death might well hope to join the gods. Nevertheless, even after death the Pharaoh could never hope to become the equal of Amun-Ra, Ra-Horakhty or Ptah. Not even Thuthmose III or Ramses II, despite their much vaunted achievements would ever be a full member of the Egyptian pantheon. The king in the Pyramid texts was called the son of Nut and son of Isis, but such was only in virtue of his mythic function. He himself was, and would remain, a mortal human being until the day of his death. It was only then that he could hope to be deified and to become united with the immortality of the divine life of the universe. After the end of the Old Kingdom, however, such a boon was available to all men, and was not only the prerogative of the monarch and of those on whom he was gracious enough to bestow it. During his earthly life the king was as mortal as the lowest of his subjects. Not even the mythic symbols of the Egyptian religious synthesis could change that fact.

The suggestion has been made that at an early point in the history of Egypt the ruling monarch was ritually put to death once his physical powers had waned or he had become too old to be any longer an effective symbol and agent of fertility...There appears, however, not to be in ancient Egypt any real indication that such a mise d mort was ever practised, and it is unlikely that many scholars would now take such a suggestion too seriously. Nevertheless, such a practice could have been in keeping with the mythic signification of the king, particularly in his role as a mediator of divine blessings to the land, most specifically the blessing of fertility.

<...>

All of this discussion concerning the nature of the monarch can be summed up in one brief remark: the Pharaoh was the sole effective means whereby Ma'at was maintained on the earth and in the state. When he ascended the throne as ruler, Ma'at was again re-established as it had been originally at the time of creation. Throughout the duration of his life he was the living and ever-present symbol of the continuation of Ma'at. When the order of Ma'at was threatened or disturbed, it was the king who would take positive action, by whatever means were necessary, to restore that order to its proper place. In this one individual there was summed up the true basis for the security of both the Egyptian state and even the universe itself. Insofar as he was the legitimate heir of the gods, the rights of his divine kingship could hardly be challenged. As the son of Ra and as Horus the son of Hathor, the Pharaoh brought into tangible and visible reality the celestial powers of the sky gods. As Horus the son of Osiris, he was further the embodiment of the fertile power inherent within the earth. As Osiris himself after death, the Pharaoh continued to exercise the power and influence which he had had while alive in his mortal form. The Egyptian Pharaoh was thus an integrating symbol, drawing together and actualizing within his person all aspects of existence, the earth, the sky, the political realm, human society and nature itself. He was the embodiment of the order of Ma'at which was in all of these. The fact that as late as the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty the same essential interpretation of the Pharaonic power was again put forward in the text known as The Memphite Theology bears witness to the essential importance and indispensability of the royal throne and its occupant." (Tobin 1989: 96-97; 100)

Basically, in Egyptian thought, king is not a divinity on earth, and has only hopes of achieving divinity in the afterlife (that is, it's not assured even to the king). Even if the king does achieve divinity in the afterlife, he will never be the equivalent of Ra, Amun, Re-Horakhty, etc. His function in the afterlife will continue to be that as it was while alive on earth: assist in maintining ma'at (order) to the world, mainly by providing divine assistance/support to his successor kings through the royal mortuary cult.

This semi-divine nature in life and not-equal divinity in the afterlife is a basic concept in Egyptology on the issue of kingship, well-known and referred to in many general history and Egyptological texts on the subject. For example, here's how Erik Hornung discusses the same issue, albeit from the issue of "what/who is divine":

"Among the range of persons and things that can be 'divine', listed in the Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache (Wb II, 363-364), only living beings are absent. Sacred animals, sacred objects, and the blessed dead are often 'divine', but here the terminology preserves the distance between those living on earth and the gods. Even the reigning king, whose titulary makes him a 'perfect god' and who receives innumerable divine epithets, is qualified by the adjective 'divine' only in rare and exceptional cases. (1) (2)" (emphasis, mine)

<...>

"But despite all this, the Egyptian king is not a deity. In the book referred to above [[b]De la divinité du pharoan[/b] (Cahiers de la Sociêté Asiatique 15, Paris 1960] Georges Posener showed how greatly the king's qualities and capacities differ from, and are inferior to, those of the gods -- even if one concedes that the very human traits of Posener's "roi des contes" can also be found in the gods in myths and that Posener measures the king against the view of the gods which is perhaps too idealized. Siegfried Morenz presented the subordination of the king to the gods as a logical process that lasted millennia, which he saw as the Rise of the Transcendent God, (the title of one of his books). It has also been possible to add the picture by identifying subtle features of the terminology that defines the king's divinity and its limits. (3) Even for the Egyptians this divinity of the king was a problem, which they tried to solve with even more formulas and definitions. They knew that there was no simple identity between the king and the god Horus or between the king and the sun god. As early as the Fourth Dynasty the famous diorite-gneiss statue of Khephren shows the king, whose titulary states that he is "Horus in the palace," under the protection of the sky god Horus, while the same king is the "son of Re" and so subordinate to the sun god." (Hornung 1982: 64; 141-142)

Notes:
(1) Hornung's note: E.g. Medinet Habu, VIII, pl. 636 II 1-2, in an unusually informal scene with the king.
(2) Hornung notes Hatshepsut's "divine quality" thusly:

"...The queen regnant shows herself to be 'divine' through her divine aroma and golden radiance, both of which emanate from the gods. Although clear examples such as this are rare, it seems to be this special emanation, which can be perceived by humans, that makes human beings, animals, or sacred objects into 'divine' entities.

Divine-ness is therefore not a matter of a definition that is fixed by an abstract statement of dogma, but an emanation that can be perceived directly and is produced not only by the gods but also by their images and manifestations." (ibid., p. 64)

(3) Hornung's note: Cf the reviews of H. Kees, OLZ 57 (1962) 467-78; J.G. Griffiths, JEA 49 (1963), 189-92.

To summarise, Josef Wegner states the matter even more succinctly, in his discussion of the royal cult:

"The Egyptian pharaoh was a sacred individual. Although mortal, he was understood to be related to the gods through a multilayered mythology which is articulated in scenes and texts on royal cult buildings and in the decoration of royal tombs. The king was the son of Re, the sun god. He was a manifestation of Horus, the falcon god, and the son of Osiris. From the time of the Middle Kingdom, increasing emphasis was placed upon his relationship with the syncretic deity, Amun-Re, and teh king was described as the son of Amun, king of the gods. The king was the intermediary between mankind and the divine, responsible for maintaining the balance of the universe throught maintaining maat, or divine order, in his earthly activities.

<...>

Cult of the Royal Ancestors. In addition to incorporating the cult of the king, Osiris, and other gods, the Sety temple at Abydos illustrates a royal cult of another nature: veneration of royal ancestors through cult activity mandated by a living king. This practice is attested during the Old and Middle Kingdoms but become especially visible during the New Kingdom. Veneration of royal predecessors could be established through patronage of existing temples, as is illustrated by activity at Karnak, or the dedications of Senwosret III within the funerary temple of Montuhotpe I. It might be articulated within a newly formed cult building, as occurred in that of Sety I at Abydos." (Wegner 2000: 333;334)

References:

Hornung, E. 1982. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many. J. Baines, transl. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Tobin, V. A. 1989. Theological principles of Egyptian religion. American University Studies. Series 7, Theology and Religion 59. New York: Peter Lang.

Wegner, J. 2000. Royal Cults. In D. B. Redford, Ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, I: 332-336. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Related References:

Bell, L. 1985. Aspects of the Cult of the Deified Tutankhamun. In P. Posener-Kriéger, Ed., Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar,I: 31-59. Cairo: IFAO.

________. 1985. Luxor Temple and the Cult of the Royal Ka. JNES 44: 251-294.

Bleeker, C. J. 1967. Egyptian Festivals: Enactments of Religious Renewal. Studies in the History of Religions. (Supplement to Numen). XIII. Leiden: Brill.

O'Connor, D. and D. P. Silverman, Eds. 1995. Ancient Egyptian Kingship. Probleme der Ägyptologie. Bd. 9. W. Helck. Leiden: Brill.

Posener, G. 1960. De la divinité du Pharaon. Cahiers de la Société Asiatique XV. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

HTH.

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Doctoral Programme in Oriental Studies [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom