[MUSIC] The king himself had a dual nature. His human side must have been apparent to the public. They knew about the birth, the aging process and the death of him and members of the royal family. And in regard to the last, details of the death of Amenemhat I, a pharaoh in the middle kingdom, appears in the story of Sinuhe and the taking over of the throne by his co-regent and son, Senwosret I. In addition, we find that Ramses II is referred to in a letter as the old general, not a divine king. In stories composed in the middle kingdom, the Pharaoh Khufu, the builder of the great pyramid is portrayed as an uninformed despot who hardly appears all knowing and all powerful. Another king has the role as the adulterer in another text, certainly not Godly. When one removes Ramses II boasting that appears in all of the versions of the battle of Kadesh that he supposedly won, it hardly appears as a significant victory. It seems that he was tricked in part. It was barely successful at all and at best, the war was a draw. In the text, Ramses was not really described as a particularly capable military leader. He claims that he was abandoned by his forces and that his victory was given through the God, Amun-Re. He is not all powerful or all knowing. Although referred to as the perfect God, the king could be perceived as imperfect and quite human. But one must remember that frailty, such as greed, depression, rage, hostility, moral weakness, ignorance, and other negative characteristics Sometimes characterized the gods as well. Perhaps detailed best in the revolved antics of the story of Horus and Seth, the fragmentary tales of the General and the Pharaoh and the less body actions in the destruction of mankind. Many of these qualities seemed to be shared equally among mortals, kings and gods. Superhuman powers and complete immortality however, are two qualities that are limited to the divine world. The ancient Egyptian calendar however has five days relegated for the birthdays of the gods. And this is in addition to its 360 days, giving a total of 365 days. So if a god is born, would that fact imply some discrepancy with a concept of eternal existence? If you have birth, then do you have death? Perhaps the theologians proposed that even though the gods have not always existed, they either came into being by themselves. In other words deities in their own right, for example the God Min or the God Atum, or were born through other divine beings. There is, however, one reference in a text called, The Book of the Two Ways, that mentions the possibility that the Sun God Re might die. Now it doesn't state that he does die so the concept of divine death may still not have existed. Certainly the approach taken in the early fragments of the story of Horus and Seth, and the complete version that we have in the New Kingdom and later, is very clear in its avoidance of the verb meaning to die in the case of the God Osiris. He can be murdered, he can be cut up, he can be slain but in no version does it actually state that he dies. Not even in the much later text of Plutarch. All of these events seem strange in consideration of the fact that the story records that he is reborn as the King of the Underworld. An incident, that to us, may be an implicit reference to his death. One might also consider the possible analogy of the death, with the disappearance of the sun at night as death. But to combat the notion, the Egyptians conceived that cosmic elements were to be a series of different Gods each incorporating an aspect of the eternal cycle of the sun. The sun was called the god Khepri, that's when the sun emerged in the morning, when he came into being in the eastern horizon. He was Re, the sun god as he travel towards mid day and then in the evening he becomes Atum. When he proceeded to the western horizon to set and then disappear into the night sky. During which time, he battles his eternal enemy Apophis the serpent. And then he would re-emerge or be reborn in the eastern horizon in the next morning.