So, long story short, one of me mates wanted my opinion on this particular video (I do not think it is anyhow necessary to watch it, but it provides context):
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYzhMN0JUD4
My answer resulted in the biggest write-up about Ancient Egypt I've done so far, and I think it is good enough to save it from being left to rot on Discord and post it at least somewhere else.
@dorgon encouraged me to copy it all here, so he gets the ping.
___________________________________________________________________
Me:
Took me a while longer than I've hoped it will, but, well, I've watched it...
What can I say... First of all, Jan Assman is a cool dude, but I ultimately disagree with a number of his propositions.
As for the guy who made the video - I think he is fair, but at the same time he definitely sees what he wants to see and he made at least one serious mistake that I've noticed. Still, he is right when he says he is convincing. I doubt I will have the words to counter him, because I was never one with a tongue or patience to explain things. But, I guess, it still would be good if I'll provide my notes on it...
So, starting with the serious mistake I've mentioned, it is on 15:50 where he says that Amun-Re is escalated to something that has never been seen before - and this is just not true. Which ties us to the creation myth he mentioned in his video.
Thing is, the creation myth of Atum is but one of creation myths of Egypt. And it is the earliest one known to us. And, therefore, I think it is safe to say that it is quite a primitive, tribalistic approach to the creation of the world. I cannot deny it remained popular in certain texts, especially in magical ones, but egyptians - in general - were quite respectful to their predcessors and enjoyed reciting old texts in one form or another. Plus, I'm not sure if it really a good argument to include clearly magical texts into religious talks...
Friend:
I don't think the ancient had a distinction between magic and religion, at least not until the rise of Christianity
Me:
It is a very dubious notion.
I mean, no one will ever be able to give you a direct answer. At least when it comes to Ancient Egypt.
I would argue against that, because there's a distinctly different form applied to magical texts and to proper religious rituals.
Magical texts in general are quite keen on taking a turn for the weird.
Friend:
Interesting
What's the key distinction in your opinion?
Me:
You see, I have this book here. James H. Breasted - Development Of Religion And Thought In Ancient Egypt.
I've got several passages from it, but allow me to return to them a bit later. First things first, allow me to conclude my thoughts about the video.
Anyway, thing is, arguably the most popular and way more "learned" creation myth that was also very widespread through the Egypt until the New Kingdom came from Memphis theology, and it was the creation of the world by Ptah. Unlike the creation by Atum, which comes from pre-dynastic period, creation of the world by Ptah has been written during very first dynasty, and it clearly shows the progress in the Egyptian worldview, as it changes from ejaculating other things into existance towards the more... enlightened practices. I can send you the myth itself, if you are interested, but here's the prelude to it.
When the First Dynasty established its capital at Memphis, it was necessary to justify the sudden emergence of this town to central importance. The Memphite god Ptah was therefore proclaimed to have been the First Principle, taking precedence over other recognized creator-gods. Mythological arguments were presented that the city of Memphis was the "place where the Two Lands are united" and that the Temple of Ptah was the "balance in which Upper and Lower Egypt have been weighed."
The extracts presented here are particularly interesting, because creation is treated in an intellectual sense, whereas other creation stories (like pp. 3-4 above [Atum]) are given in purely physical terms. Here the god Ptah conceives the elements of the universe with his mind ("heart") and brings them into being by his commanding speech ("tongue"). Thus, at the beginning of Egyptian history, there was an approach to the Logos Doctrine.
Therefore, what he claims as never had been before New Kingdom, actually has been conceived as early as Old Kingdom of Egypt.
Another point he mentions is how "Shu becomes Osiris", and therefore they should be one and the same, which is very wrong from egyptian point of view. Especially in case of Osiris, since - and it is one of my favorite theological points - in many texts of Ancient Egypt it is repeated that in death every man becomes Osiris. I doubt you can stretch that to the point that every man is literally God. I mean, it is definitely possible, but it doesn't sound viable.
Now, I'm glad he mentioned the Instruction of Merikare, because those passages where Gods are refered to as a singular God are nothing special in polytheistic religions. Allow me to quote myself from one of my recent forum posts...
This is the point which I've picked up from the work named Stephen O. Smoot - Ancient Egyptian "Monotheism" A Comparative Analysis, and you can read it whole for a more detailed and nuanced point.
https://disk.yandex.ru/i/zWiiWduD3Uc6Kg
Finally, we can move on to the New Kingdom, which I, in general, dislike. The man in the video says that New Kingdom provided volumes of "religious and intellectual developence" - well, in my opinion, the pinnacle of all that was the Middle Kingdom, while New Kingdom was largerly the decadence and the last breaths of Ancient Egypt. And while it is undeniable that a lot of... personal piety came to us in New Kingdom - especially after the heresy of Akhenaten - there are few points which you have to keep in mind.
First: New Kingdom simply wins this one because it is, well, New. A lot of texts that survived to our days come from New Kingdom just because it is closer to us on a timeline. We have significantly less prayers from Middle Kingdom and pretty much none from the Old Kingdom.
And second, here's another quote I want to present:
Černý noted that while depictions of the gods do not appear on personal monuments of the Old and Middle Kingdoms, divine names do occur in the inscriptions. Černý theorized that the absence of depictions of deities on individuals' monuments resulted from the official view that only the king, himself a deity, could appear with the gods. It was only in the Second Intermediate period that depictions of gods began to appear on private monuments ― due to the absolute equality for all in the religion which was achieved by the time of the XIIth Dynasty... Like Erman, Černý saw the reign of Akhenaten as the impetus that allowed freer expression in texts permitting Egyptians to express their emotional feelings and attitudes about the gods. In his discussion of the Deir el Medina stelae, published by Erman, Černý stressed the humility of the worshipper whose appeal for mercy is recorded on the stelae, as well as the confessional nature of the texts, contrasting it with the self assured tone and the assumption of infallibility pervading all the earlier religious literature. He contended, however, that these Deir el Medina texts are actually only a continuation of similar sentiments towards the gods expressed by the theophorous names of earlier periods that, in the New Kingdom, are openly expressed.
Plus a lot of texts mentioned in the video are actually from the very early dynasties of the New Kingdom. So if anything, even if I cannot really prove it, I think that personal piety comes to prominence during Middle Kingdom. And it is kind of important in context, because during Middle Kingdom Egypt was, without a doubt, polytheistic. The video also seems to emphasize the significance of Amun-Re, when it is simply not quite true as well, because personal prayers could have been extended to any God.
We do know, for example, of prayers dedicated to Thoth, and to a very local, pretty much unknown outside of the prayer, Goddess named "Meres-ger, Lady of Heaven, Mistress of the Two Lands, whose good name is Peak of the West."
And if we are to take magical texts into account, there are also quite heartful lines here and there, like "O thou in whose hand is the moment that belongeth to these hours bring in the light to me! Anubis, the good oxherd, bring in the light to me, for thoushalt give protection to me here today."
Which brings us to the point of magic...
So, key distinction lies in the fact that magical texts are really weird, as I've already mentioned. You probably just don't realise how weird they are, but with some experience you will pretty much never confuse a magic text with a religious one. Allow me to quote a friend of mine...
Hm, interesting. I must admit, I know little about both the PT (Pyramid Texts) and the Book of the Dead... I keep shying away from it because the PT are often kind a weird. May you bespit the face of Horus and remove his injury! May you catch the testicles of Seth and remove his mutilation! That one is born for you, this one is conceived for you. - What on earth?
This is the kind of stuff you will never meet in more religious texts.
And if you want more about this question, well, we have to start from the fact that I, in general think that Middle Kingdom is the peak of Ancient Egyptian culture. While it is decadence in the New Kingdom - during the Old Kingdom there's indeed little distinction between magic and religion.
There are also very... lowly concepts still prevalent during the Old Kingdom. Such as the concept of the afterlife reserved only for pharaohs or for pharaohs and nobles, you know...
But as Old Kingdom endured from 3000 BC to 2000 BC, it progressed a lot duting the thousand of years. And so by the Middle Kingdom we can see an entirely different, very enlightened society, with high moral values. Well, on paper, at least. Of course.
Here's the quote which I've picked up:
That which saves the Book of the Dead itself from being exclusively a magical vade mecum for use in the hereafter is its elaboration of the ancient idea of the moral judgment, and its evident appreciation of the burden of conscience. The relation with God had become something more than merely the faithful observance of external rites. It had become to some extent a matter of the heart and of character. Already in the Middle Kingdom the wise man had discerned the responsibility of the inner man, of the heart or understanding. The man of ripe and morally sane understanding is his ideal, and his counsel is to be followed. "A hearkener (to good counsel) is one whom the god loves. Who hearkens not is one whom the god hates. It is the heart (understanding) which makes its possessor a hearkener or one not hearkening. The life, prosperity, and health of a man is in his heart.
You see, during the Old Kingdom it seems the notion of Gods being equal to men - or at least top pharaohs and nobles - is quite widespread. The texts from those times often... pose an idea that Gods could be cheated, that men can use magic and whatever to appear innocent before judgement and make their way into the afterlife even if they were not quite as pious during their life. The funerary texts often portray egyptian simply declaring their innocence, as if declaration itself, spoken in a proper way, will erase all sins.
And it is really funny when you look at it like that; one can only wonder what happened to make it all change so radically - but by the time of a Middle Kingdom there's definitely a solid expression that all living beings have a soul which will enter the afterlife if they are worthy, and that Gods are infallible, magic will not save your soul. It is still welcome, and it still mentioned often, but I think it ties to the fact that I've mentioned in the very start: egyptians liked old texts and respected the wisdoms of their predcessors. Their art was very traditionalistic, conservative. So it is kind of understandable that all the magic of the Old Kingdom is still in the funeral texts, despite the general notion that it won't help you ultimately.
It is kind of like the... scenarious of the reliefs, which are the same in the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom. Or the general planning of a temple: despite all the new arhitectural nuance, the overall... map of the temple remains unchanged for a long time.
So kind of similar thing happens to the magical texts: they are still there, but the notion have changed, and when you read these texts, it is... quite visible.
Therefore I would argue that during Middle Kingdom there was a visible distinction between magical and religious texts. Whether egyptians themselves saw and recognized it is a whole other point, but it is there.
That book I've mentioned - Development Of Religion And Thought In Ancient Egypt - is very interesting, but it is also not a small read. I can send it to you if you are interested.
Plus, there is always this fact that definitely should be noted one more time: most texts that survived for us to read are the texts of kings and nobles - few layman egyptians could afford themselves the monuments and secure tombs which lasted to our days. I think it is more than viable to... use your internal gaze to figure out how things could have been. After all, ancient egyptians were pretty much the same human beings we were. And those changes in relgious texts between kingdoms - and changes overall - they did not just happen overnight. Ultimately, even Akhenaten didn't just appear and installed Aten out of sudden. There should be an understanding of background, of certain... social currents which enabled this kind of thing, and said social currents obviously take time to develop.
So it is quite... expectable that the texts of nobility that we see today are likely at least somewhat more arrogant than the ways the genral public addressed the Gods during their times. The few texts of the lower classes that we have are proving it.
___________________________________________________________________
I think it turned out rather solid. With the exception of my view that New Kingdom is likely the decadence of Ancient Egypt: this is a very personal point which - I admit - I can hardly support with any facts, really. But whether it is true or not - it doesn't change much. You can be free to ignore that particular notion if you do not agree with me.
I also sent everything I've written to another friend of mine who is way more prolific in the area of Ancient Egypt than I am, and he pretty much agreed with what I wrote. Matter of fact, he was even more harsh on the whole notion of monoteism in Ancient Egypt. But I think his opinion is interesting anough to attach it here as kind of final thoughts:
I think the very important starting point, one I also believe in, would be this:
After all, ancient egyptians were pretty much the same human beings we were.
A good place to look would therefore be modern polytheists, or should I say, people who grew up in a polytheist environment
I suspect that monotheists are near incapable of understanding non-monotheistic societies or thought
There is a certain underlying assumption that there can be only one god (mine) and people desperately search to find him in e.g. the Aten to say: see? They didn't use the right label but at least they had the right idea!
I don't think that catches the thoughts in the 2nd millennium BCE at all.
That said, there is an interesting question as to a more general concept of god vs the individual divine figures like Maat, PtaH, Amun, Re etc
I have noticed the phrase (from NK letters): I am well today, tomorrow is in the hands of the god.
This reminds me of the way shangdi 上帝 (heavenly emperor) is used in Chinese
This does not negate the existence of the earth god / kitchen god, the reign of the gods in the ocean and all the other divine figures in the Chinese pantheon. And yet it seems the most relevant for your day-to-day life or fate.
I think it would be interesting to look at how Chinese who still follow polytheism (South East Asia) and Hindus conceptualize divinity.
I think it will be hard from a monotheist perspective
...
Talked this over with my wife who grew up in a synchretist Chinese environment (e.g. for a funeral you would have four different types of monks show up, covering the different bases). Here's a quick summary of our discussion: Divinity is at the start, as a fundamental need of humans, something to lean on for protection, something to be in awe of. This takes different channels, which are situationally dependent. Not unlike in catholic Christianity, where you have not just Jesus and Mother Mary, but also the apostles, saints and archangels with their very specific functions. A devout catholic will know that for this ailment you turn to this saint, and for that protection to another. Not unlike a Hindu reaching out to Ganesh for success in their studies. For the believer, these entities are real, but they are also just channels of the same divinity. You could liken it to the State, which - depending on your worldview - may be there to protect you or out to get you. Said state has a myriad of different officials and entities you can turn to, but they are all part of the State.
Just how much particular Gods in polytheistic religions could be viewed as an extension of one Divinity is an interesting topic which could use a write up of its own. Same applies to parallels between polytheism and different saints, which is yet another very interesting topic - matter of fact, some of the saints are very likely Gods of ancient cultures, which managed to survive into christianity as saints rather than as full-fledged Gods. But for now, I think this is more than enough. Maybe we'll get to the other points later.