Some Kemetic groups today have resolved this issue simply by appointing a member as the "Pharaoh" of their organization. In other situations individuals, usually the founders of the groups, proclaim them self as "Pharaoh." Such cases are frequently accompanied by claims of divine visitation in which the Gods of Egypt themselves had allegedly conferred this special status upon them. These people will frequently claim that, because of this divine visitation, they have become the direct link to the long line of actual Ancient Egypt Kings. These same individuals have often looked to alleged past life memories to further bolster their case, revealing that they are the reincarnation of actual Ancient Egyptian Kings.

In this article it is not my intention to contradict the claims of individuals who may sincerely feel that they are in fact the King/Pharaoh of Ancient Egyptian Religion. For their particular organizations this claim has proven to be an effective way to resolve the issue, thus maintaining a sense of tradition involved with divine Kingship. Yet one has to ask, if such a claim is legitimate does this mean that the individual involved is the King of all reconstructionists of Ancient Egyptian religion whether the others are part of the person's particular organization or not? If not and the status of divine Kingship only applies when the person is addressing members of their own organization then does this mean that other Kemetic groups with individuals claiming a right to divine Kingship too have been conferred this through the Gods? Are each and everyone of these "Kings" the direct heir to the throne of Egypt? Is it possible to have more than one King at any one time? If so, is one "King" more legitimate than another? Or, if on the other hand, there can be only one "true" King, who among the different individuals claiming divine Kingship is in fact the real King and who are the impostors?

Perhpas the best way to address this questions is to take a very careful look at the archeological record. For it is known that at various points in Ancient Egyptian history there were periods when there were no sitting Kings. While at other times there were power struggles and leadership changes that involved several different potential Kings. In particular the late period saw foreign rulers and at times no obvious individual as King. Clearly the Egyptians were, at least occasionally, faced with the same problem we now find ourselves in (Wilkinson 2000.12-13). However, before we look at how the Ancient Egyptians resolved this issue themselves perhaps it is important to look at the esoteric role of the King in this spiritual discipline.

In Ancient Egypt the King, the Pharaoh, was called the Nisu[t], as well as being referred to as the Pr-aA, meaning "Great House." While the Nisu[t] was a mortal being he or she was also seen as the incarnation of the divine. In this sense the King was perceived as being the "Living Heru," the God Horus manifest on earth. However, because so much of Egyptian religion revolves around the preservation of the universe as it had existed at the moment of manifest creation, known as Tep Zepi, the "first time"(Wisner 2000, 2002.25), the King was also seen as being similar to the Sun God Atum-Ra after he had emerged from the primaeval waters of Nun. Yet, in a similar sense the texts speak of the King as the son of Ra; the direct heir to Ra's title and power (Tyldesley 1996.7-8 and Clark 1959).

As confusing as this may seem, the primary point to be understood here is that the King was considered to be divinity incarnate. As such, it was the King who formed the link between humanity and the Gods/divinity (Bell 1997.181). Thus, theoretically, the Nisu[t] was the primary priest in all of Egypt (Wilkinson 2000.86, Watterson 1998.75, Sauneron 1960.34). On an esoteric level it was the King, as priest, who was responsible for maintaining harmony thus preserving the temporal world generally and Egypt specifically.

Logistically though it was impossible for the King to be in all temples to perform the rites daily. Rather he or she would make visits to various temples. On all other occasions the priesthood of the temples would perform the rites as representatives of the King. Thus like the King, for that moment, they became the link to divine themselves.

As Serge Sauneron explains: "It is in the name and place of the reigning sovereign that the priests of Egypt daily and throughout the land maintain the practice of the divine religion." He continues by explaining that the role of the priesthood was: ". . . to maintain the integrity on earth of the divine presence, in the sanctuary of the temples where this presence has consented to dwell . . . to maintain the universe in the form in which the gods have created it. It is a work of specialists, a task of technicians" (Sauneron 1960.34).

Thus, it becomes clear that it was not the exclusive domain of the King to have contact with the divine. Rather, the practice of the priesthood performing the same duties in the temple indicates that they too had a connection with the Neteru, the Gods. In certain circumstances this same relationship could even extend to private devotee's during prayer. Dr. Geraldine Pinch points out that inscriptions from a Ramessid edifice in Djeser-Akhet show that a visitor referred to himself as "born of the iht cow" suggesting a relationship with Hwt-Hrw (the Goddess Hathor) that is comparable to that of the King! Dr. Pinch continues explaining that several votive offerings presented to Hwt-Hrw from average people commonly ask for "life, prosperity, and health" which are the equivalent of the qualities bestowed upon the King by Hwt-Hrw (Pinch 1993.177-178).

For modern devotees of the Egyptian legacy the implications of this are important. For this indicates that the Ancient Egyptians recognized the connection all people have with the divine. Each person could form a relationship with the Neteru. While undoubtedly the role of the King as the divine incarnate was exclusive, the ability of others to perceive and interact with the Neteru was clearly a part of the Egyptian spiritual tradition.

In regards to the temples themselves the archeological record shows that each of these were in fact governed by a council of high ranking permanent clergy. Dr. Barbara Watterson explains that "the governing body of a temple was a small committee, known as a knbt, which was composed entirely of priests." Further, Dr. Watterson points out that these committees were in affect in the temples at least until AD 202, thus covering the vast majority of Ancient Egyptian history (Watterson 1998.78-79).

In these councils all members had a say, while the senior priesthood members opinions were considered more important. The Knbt was overseen by the High Priest or Priestess known as the Jemjra Hem[t] Neter (Shafer 1997.18). Thus while in theory the Nisu[t] governed the temples, for all intents and purposes the councils actually ran the majority of the temple functions and decided religious as well as esoteric issues.

Nor were these councils a later addition to the Egyptian spiritual system. References showing that synods ran the temples prior to the Ptolemies can be found in Sherif El-Sabban's "Temple Festival Calendars." In his examination of the festivals of the New Kingdom (Ramesses III festival calendar) he points out that the temples were run by a council of priests who were "like a modern committee." A register from a Middle Kingdom temple indicates that the committee that governed it consisted of ten members:

1. The High Priest or Priestess
2. Whmw - Hearld
3. The Master of secrets
4. The Leader of the Wardrobe
5. The Head of the Workshops
6. The Chief Porter
7. The Chief Priest of the House of the Ka
8. A Temple Scribe
9. The Scribe of the Altar
10. Leader of the Lector Priests

New Kingdom tables show that as many as twenty members could sit on the Knbt:

1. The High Priest or Priestess (Jemjra Hem Neter, Hem Neter Tpy)
2. The Second Priest or Priestess (Hem Neter)
3. A Lector Priest
4. Temple Scribe
5. Scribe of the Altar
6 - 9. Father of the God (It-Neter)
10 - 15. Six Hem Neter
16. Chief of the workshops
17. Whmw - Hearld
18. Treasury Scribe
19. Local Steward (imy-r pr)
20. Chief of Cattle or, in some cases, and additional Hem Neter (El-Sabban 2000.138-139)

From the archeological record it can be seen the temples were run by these committees throughout the majority of Egypt's history. Further these were run more or less in a democratic fashion with the High Priest or High Priestess having the final say in matters (Watterson 1998.79).

However, this model of religious governing through councils of priesthood extended beyond the affairs of each individual temple. Frequently councils of high ranking priesthood members from a variety of temples would meet annually to decide issues of both religion and state. Records from these show that many of these council sessions could last as long as four months. Often times the High Priest of Ptah at Memphis presided over these annual gatherings (Shafer 1997.18). Egyptologist Ragnhild Bjerre Finnestad explains more about these annual gatherings:

"Notwithstanding differentiations among the various categories of priests, they acted in many respects as a socioreligious group. They cooperated in cultic,administrative, and economic matters, and they met in synods. During a long period under the Ptolemies, they were expected to meet in annual conventions to discuss with representatives of the state matters pertaining to politics and cultus." (Finnestad 1997.228)

So we see that records exist extending from very early in Egyptian history to well beyond Pharonic rule indicating that not only the temples but in fact, affairs of both state and religion were decided by priesthood councils. Consequently, while the role of the King in Egyptian religion is without a doubt vital to this spiritual system the temples could, and for the most part frequently did, run fairly independently under the guidance of the Knbt's.

This brings us back to our original discussion. Can, or should contemporary organizations attempting to reconstruct the religious beliefs of Ancient Egypt incorporate the concept of a single leader as a Pharaoh, King or Nisu[t]. For us at Akhet Hwt-Hrw the answer seems clear. We simply can not recognize any living person today as a Pharaoh or Nisu[t].

As we saw earlier, in Ancient Egypt the Nisu[t] was seen as the incarnation of the Neter Heru (Horus), as well as having distinct links to Ra. He or she was seen as a living God here in the material world who acted as the intermediary between humanity and the divine. As such their power and authority was viewed, in theory, as being absolute and unquestionable. Thus they were the sole ruler of the earthly realm (Egypt) with authority in the divine realm as well. The Nisu[t] was the King of Egypt. Yet, Egypt as the kingdom that had honored the Neteru no longer exists. It is now an Islamic state. As such there can be no Nisu[t] .. no living King of Ancient Egypt. This ended two thousand years ago.

As a contemporary orgaization attempting to practice the religious rites and beliefs of Ancient Egypt we at Akhet are painfully aware of the fact that times have changed; just as the priesthood who had survived in the late period temples of Egypt had come to realize when there were no more Pharaoh's (note that the priesthood of Ancient Egypt did survive until the 4th century AD when the last strong hold of this religion was destroyed and its priesthood murdered by zealot Christians). Yet these temples continued to function without a Nisu[t] because they were governed by a council; the Knbt which we had just examined.

Because there is no Nisu[t] Akhet Hwt-Hrw is structured on the ancient principal noted above of governing through a council. All decisions are made by a council with careful consideration given to each person's views, usually with a fair amount of debate. We do not recognize any one person today as the incarnation of God/Neter. Rather, the wisdom of the council lays in the individual members experience and training. Not by virtue of a title.

Finally, we feel that, in our culture and current historical era, there is a real danger in allowing any one person in a religious organization or esoteric order to have a title or position in which they can claim to be, or have access to, absolute authority. This is especially so in considering the traditional function of the Nisu[t]. It is our belief that a series of checks and balances are needed. Without these the kind of authority entailed in the position of Nisu[t], even if in title only, frequently can lead to despotism and possibly the oppression of other members of the group. Hence the need for a council.

Perhaps the important point to keep mind is that while the Egyptians saw the King as divinity incarnate, they also recognized that we each can form a relationship with the Gods. As shown earlier the texts clearly describe all people, commoners and trained priests alike, as having the capacity of listening to, communicating with, and partaking of the essence of the Gods. This should be the foundation of the reconstruction of Egyptian Religion; not the deification of a single individual, but rather the realization that we each can form our own connection with the Neteru.

For more information on the Priesthood of Ancient Egypt see the details of Lesson Ten of Akhet Hwt-Hrw's course "Ancient Egyptian Ritual Magic."

Works Cited

Bell, Lanny. "The New Kingdom ‘Divine' Temple: The Example of Luxor". Temples of Ancient Egypt. Copyright 1997. Pages 127 - 184. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.

Clark, R. T. Rundle.  Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt.  Copyright 1959.  Thames and Hudson Ltd. London, England.

El-Sabban, Sherif. Temple Festival Calendars of Ancient Egypt.Copyright 2000. Liverpool University Press, Redwood Books. Trowbridge, Wiltshire, UK.

Finnestad, Ragnhild Bjerre. "Temples of the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods: Ancient Traditions in New Contexts." Temples of Ancient Egypt. Copyright 1997. pages 185 - 237. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.

Pinch, Geraldine. Votive Offerings to Hathor. Copyright 1993. Griffith Institute. Oxford, England.

Sauneron, Serge. The Priests of Ancient Egypt. Copyright 1960. Grove Press. New York, New York, U.S.A.

Shafer, Byron E. Temples of Ancient Egypt. Copyright 1997. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York, New York, U.S.A.

Tydesley, Joyce. Hatchepsut: The Female Pharaoh. Copyright 1996. Viking (the Penguin Group). London, England.

Watterson, Barbara. The House of Horus at Edfu. Copyright 1998. Tempus Publishing Limited. Stroud, Gloucestershire, England.

Wilkinson, Richard H., The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt. Copyright 2000. Thames and Hudson Inc. New York, New York, U.S.A.

Wisner, Kerry. Eye of the Sun: The Sacred Legacy of Ancient Egypt. Copyright 2000, 2002. Hwt-Hrw Publications. Nashua, New Hampshire, U.S.A.