Talk:Osiris myth

Not clear
Ive just realised how confused this article could appear with regards to the difference between horus the elder and horus the child. Once I have sorted this out at Horus, I will come back and fix it here.

The second paragraph of the 'The coffin and the acacia' is alot confusing. If there was a link to the legend it references, that might help.

History of the myth
The article states that this myth originated in the Middle Kingdom, that Apep was its original villain, and that Set only became Osiris' murderer in the New Kingdom. However, I have a book on Egyptian hieroglyphs which says, "Already in the Pyramid Texts Set is held to be the murderer of Osiris and the opponent of Horus in what appears to be a developed mythological cycle." The Pyramid Texts date from the middle of the Old Kingdom, so this flatly contradicts the article. However, the book gives no more detail on the subject, and I do not feel comfortable rewriting whole sections of the article without further information. Anyone who has better information, please rewrite the article or tell me where to find it. A. Parrot 02:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)A. Parrot

Horus' Parents
I believe that the phrasing "Osiris was resurrected. So it was that Isis conceived Horus. " is unnecessarily coy. While one version of the myth has it that Isis breathed life into Horus or that Horus magically appeared, other evidence plus the fact that Isis went to considerable lengths to recreate (magically) the missing piece of Osiris--his phallus--lends greater credibility to other versions suggesting that they had sex and Horus was the normal biological result. Such an idea might have been entertaining and not as morally reprehensible to the Egyptians as it apparently is to later historians and internet interpreters.

The more neutral but nod of the head in this direction might at least be "Osiris was resurrected. So it was that Isis and Osiris conceived Horus."

--174.7.25.37 (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Osiris' Penis
This article says that Set ate Osiris' penis, whereas, the Osiris article says that a fish ate it. Does anyone know where the differing interpretations come from? Petronivs (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The versions I've heard elsewhere say it was a fish. It's possible that the fish was (or became) associated with Set because fish were usually regarded as unclean, and as the Egyptian view of Set darkened he came to be associated with just about every unclean creature. It's also possible that there's no basis for Set's involvement at all, and the person who wrote that was just full of it. A. Parrot (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspected that it's either a misinterpretation or the person who wrote it was full of it, as you said, but I am definitely nothing even close to an expert on Egyptian mythology, so I wanted to point it out in case someone knowledgeable knows anything about it. I also pointed out the conflict on the main Osiris talk page, as more people probably watch that. Petronivs (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In 40 years of reading Egyptian mythology, I've never read or heard that Set ate Osiris's penis. I find the complete lack of any real references in this article very disturbing. There should at least be a couple of references to proper books specifically on Egyptian mythology or the Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride in translation, etc. etc.

racial imagery
Why are the pictures in these articles shown as europeans. Everyone on this planet knows that the Ancient Egyptians were black africans. Why are you people so jellous of african history, could it be because the europeans dont have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.22.149 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The pictures in this article are not European. That said, there are other images not in this article where it is more clear that Osirus is black. If you have rights to one of those then you should certainly add it.165.82.90.155 (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not the appropriate venue to be spreading Afrocentrist fairy tales. The pictures in the article all depict pharaonic era Egyptian art, so if you object to the way these characters are depicted, your issue is with the ancient artisans who created these images.  I guess Egyptian artists had an anti-Afrocentrism bias.  Trilobright (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Overuse of punctuation
Appalling overuse of commas throughout this article. Commas separate list items! The article has been written as though the author thinks that a comma indicates a "speech pause". This is a common error, as is using a comma before the word AND.
 * British and American style conventions use commas differently; Americans use more, Britons use fewer. (Under WP:Manual of style, neither is preferred over the other, as long as articles consistently use one variety.) I assume based on your IP address that you're British. As an American, I'm familiar with American conventions. I think my comma usage adheres to those rules, although there's a lot of ambiguity in them. If there's an error somewhere, check it against a Chicago Manual of Style and point it out. A. Parrot (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Resurrection, Christianity, Horus
No mention at all of the background of the Osiris myth wrt the extremely quick spread of Christianity in Egypt in the 1st century? Because of Osiris, the Egyptians were fond of resurrection myth, and Mary//Isis fit well with established habits also. Why is none of this discussed? Fig (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't found sources to address the issue of similarities with Christianity in detail. A lot of sources do touch on the issue briefly. But when people try to include information about it in an article, many people see it as an attempt to undermine Christianity by claiming it was influenced by "paganism"—and then you have endless squabbles between Christians and anti-Christians (look at old discussions at Talk:Isis, Talk:Horus, and Talk:Osiris to get an idea). I'd rather not deal with that without sources that thoroughly examine how Osiris and company may have influenced Christianity or made it easier for Egyptians to accept. Fortunately, I have found a source and should obtain it soon. When I do, I'll add something about the Christian connection. A. Parrot (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this just needs a see also Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology EdwardLane (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Because this is an internet legend, largely promulgated by the conspiracy 'documentary' Zeitgeist, and subsequently by Bill Maher. There's nothing to it in real life.  The purported life and aspects of Jesus don't resemble Horus anymore than they do Quetzalcoatl or Viracocha.  Trilobright (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Isis posthumously conceived a son?
Does this mean that Isis was dead when she conceived (and gave birth to) her son? I realise that anything is possible with such gods, but should it not state that Osiris posthumously impregnated Isis, who then bore Horus?
 * Makes sense. I changed the lead accordingly. See how that looks. A. Parrot (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is the usual division between literal and symbolic interpretations. Parrot has an issue about modern evangelical atheists who try to make the BVM into a direct copy of Isis and therefore he pushes this particular literalist line to show that Isis could not have been a virgin therefore Christianity has been saved by Parrot. Plutarch would have thought the literalists were dunderheads who were incapable of reading spiritual texts spiritually. People like Jan Assmann give credence to Plutarch's allusion to Isis-Neith as being the great virgin (of whom no man has ever lifted her veil) as having been based on an original Egyptian text so it is blatant bias to exclude such material from an article like this whilst at the same time pushing the literal impregnation interpretation. I wouldn't mention either. Yt95 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Some refs to support my assertions (the first two are egyptologists and the third a classicist all published by academic press):
 * “…’The fruit of my [Isis’] womb is the sun’. Here, the statement that “no one [including the gods] lifted her garment” refers to the fact that the goddess [Isis] bore the sun without male interference. Proclus’ version cannot be taken from Plutarch; there must be a common and possibly Egyptian source….It is easy to relate Plutarch’s and Proclus’ renderings of the Saite inscription to authentic Egyptian texts and theology.” (Moses the Egyptian, Jan Assmann 1997, ISBN 0-674-58739-1)
 * “Isis breathed life into his [Osiris] body he engendered a son. Theirs was the Savior Child of Light, born at the winter solstice with the sun……As the redemptive figure of the Egyptian god loomed large over the ancient world, Isis came to be worshipped as the Primordial Virgin….(Osiris, Mojsov, p. xii, 2005, ISBN 1-405-13179-9)
 * “The Egyptian Goddess who was equally ‘the Great Virgin’ (hwnt) and ‘Mother of the God’ was the object of the very same praises..” (Isis in the Ancient World”, R. E. Witt, John Hopkins University Press, p. 273, ISBN 0-8018-5642-6, see J. Gywn Griffiths review in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology)
 * Plutarch explains that the coupling of Isis and Osiris alludes to a kind of mystical union of the soul which is released on death to search and consort with the unutterable beauty of God – Osiris whom he describes as “the First, the Lord of All, the Ideal One” (pl. 2)
 * “But when these [deceased] souls are set free and migrate into the realm of the invisible and the unseen, the dispassionate and the pure, then this god [Osiris] becomes their leader and king, since it is on him that they are bound to be dependent in their insatiate contemplation and yearning for that beauty which is for men unutterable and indescribable. With this beauty Isis, as the ancient story declares, is for ever enamored and pursues it and consorts with it and fills our earth here with all things fair and good that partake of generation.” (78) (cf. Osiris, Mojsov, p. 126, 2005, ISBN 1-405-13179-9)
 * Plutarch’s interpretation does have support in Ancient Egyptian iconography in which the coupling of Isis and Osiris is shown as Isis hovering in the form of a bird over Osiris. The Ancient Egyptians were no prudes when it came to fertility and associated depictions, e.g Nut and Geb are explicitly shown in human form but for whatever reason when it comes to Osiris and Isis they chose in the aforementioned depiction to allude to an underlying symbolism. As Plutarch himself says “you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related.” (pl 11)Yt95 (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Status in fact
While events may not have occurred exactly as the legend would have them, there is certainly substantial evidence to suggest that this tale actually occurred in some form or other. With this in mind, could we please stop referring to it as a myth? 144.124.24.57 (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, seems quite biased to refer to this religous tale as a myth, and not others. --198.161.238.19 (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If substantial evidence exists, this should be cited, otherwise it is hard to avoid referring to such a tale as a myth. For example, claimimg you had got pregnant by your deceased spouse is not that credible; there could be another explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.99.72 (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 85.177.99.72 has a point; there is almost no evidence that these events really happened. The most that modern Egyptologists will say is that the Horus–Set conflict may have been inspired by rival factions within Egypt. I haven't seen anyone argue that Horus and Set themselves are based on real people; they were worshipped as gods even before the unification of Egypt. But the word "myth" does not necessarily mean "falsehood". If a story is the basis of a culture's belief system or traditions, it can be called a myth regardless of its truth or falsehood. See mythology and Egyptian mythology to get some idea of the issues involved in defining myth. A. Parrot (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be useful to agree on the meaning of "myth" in this question. Dictionary.com provides the following definition: "A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature". This would seem to support the use of the word "myth" for this article. --TraceyR (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Osiris appears in Manetho's list of Kings when the rulers were gods. He is mentioned in many passages by the Early Church Fathers as having been a real person who was deified and I cannot think of any of those texts in which his existence is denied. One Pope even claimed descent from Osiris. No matter what modern secular scholars think any serious article with pretentions to npov (this isn't one of them) would mention matters like this Yt95 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Some refs to support my assertions:
 * “The era of the reign of Osiris and Isis, his wife and sister, was considered to be a “golden age” in human history. Osiris taught the people agriculture and civilized them, while Isis established the institution of marriage.” (Eros on the Nile, Mysliwiec, p. 56, ISBN 0-7156-3302-3)
 * “One of the first acts related of Osiris in his reign was to deliver the Egyptians from their destitute and brutish manner of living. This he did by showing them the fruits of cultivation, by giving them laws, and by teaching them to honour the gods. Later he travelled over the whole earth civilizing it without the slightest need of arms, but most of the peoples he won over to his way by the charm of his persuasive discourse combined with song and all manner of music. Hence the Greeks came to identify him with Dionysus.” Plutarch (13)
 * “before these men they said that gods were the rulers in Egypt, not mingling with men, and that of these always one had power at a time; and the last of them who was king over Egypt was Oros [Horus] the son of Osiris, whom the Hellenes call Apollo: he was king over Egypt last, having deposed Typhon [Seth].(Herodotus)
 * For some (hostile) refs to the Early Church Fathers and Osiris:
 * Athanasius: Contra Gentiles 9.4, Letter of Ignatious to the Romans  BKVIII.26, Athenagoras For the Christians 28, Oration in Praise of the emperor Constantine pronounced on the 30th anniversary of his reign, Exhortation to the Heathen IV
 * For Pope Alexander VI who claimed descent from Osiris see "The Egyptian Revival", Routledge, 2005, pp. 86-87 Yt95 (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are issues about heaven that Osiris addresses. They are some of the hiroglyphs you find in many tombs.  My research indicated that Osiris instituted the order of the Pharoes.  It seems that the Book of the Dead provides the evidence.   Written in many tombs as an incantation it highlights the importance of teaching the story of Osiris to the people he rules.  This knowledge is used to "pay" the toll across the river Styx.
 * By teaching this "lesson" the people are allowed onto the and"Duat"... Or Heaven. The pyramids represent heaven.  They reflect Orion's belt. This represents the Duat. Heaven.
 * People and cultures forgot the story and substituted coins on the eyes when you die.  To pay the Ferryman. Seth cut Osiris into a bunch of bits and pieces. Isis collected the parts with the Anch and put  him back together.  The last piece she recognized as the woodwork over the entrance of a palace.
 * The result was the birth of Horus. Order was brought to Egypt.
 * We are still studying these anomalies. 2600:1700:BFB0:3300:D01A:6870:FF04:5F1E (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"Gratuitous request"?? Plus, The origins or basis of the myth
The entire Intro has not one single reference citation in it. And since someone wrote that "Most of its [the legend's] elements originated in religious ideas", and not the other way around, I'd like to see some sources and justification of that. Claiming to know the origin of an ancient story is always an eyebrow-raiser. So then, How is a single insertion of a "gratuitous request"? Please explain and justify Undoing my insertion, Modernist. Thank you. Misty MH (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * References are not required in intros - that's the point. The issues brought up in the intro however must be explained in the text of the article...Modernist (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. I've seen Citations in the Intros of many, many articles, but "missing" in some. So, apparently, many editors are not aware of this particular style question, whether it's one way or the other. I myself often read ONLY the Intro to an article, and not the whole, long article. That's probably true of a lot of people. And so, therefore, it is there that I most want to see Citations/References/Footnotes. And while I can agree that it doesn't look pretty, it may be there that they are most needed, for that very reason. Can you tell me where on W. that it says that Citations are not required in the Intros? or is that your view? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD. You can either have them or not; quotations need them. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. This particular statement is supported in Osiris myth. The sentence could be qualified with "Most of its elements are believed to have originated in religious ideas", though that would probably invite complaints about weasel words. A. Parrot (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I may check that out. I know what you mean about Weasel words, LOL. Misty MH (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I checked out the Citation in Origins for the claim there and in the Intro. It just happens to refer to 2 of only a FEW pages that are N/A at Google Books for this work! And the book itself at Amazon costs a minimum of $525 for the short paperback! How convenient (irony-sarcasm). This makes it difficult to check the reference. ~ Conspiracy theory/hypothesis/thought: Wondering if someone puts in fake or real references on Wikipedia that cannot be looked up online (like in Google Books) so that they can sell very pricy books. ~ Maybe I'll find it in a library. Misty MH (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Edit: Removed reference to my editing the name, because I Undid that edit. :) Misty MH (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone here have the book Seth, God of Confusion: A Study of His Role in Egyptian Mythology and Religion by H. Te Velde, or Herman Te Velde? The 1967 edition (cited) or the 1977 edition? Someone had to have added that Citation.... Thank you! Misty MH (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

How does one find out quickly who added a Citation? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Look in the history, although it might take a few minutes...Modernist (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Or for me, it might take hours! That's why I was asking. :) Misty MH (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * All the citations to te Velde are by me. All of the article is, except a few phrases here and there. It was in such terrible shape that I rewrote the whole thing last spring, so any errors here are probably my fault. In the specific pages you ask about, te Velde is arguing against Griffiths' thesis of a complex, multi-stage historical conflict that produced the Horus–Set conflict. He says, for instance, "…how is it that this supposed record of the fashioning of a nation could begin to function as a religious myth? Not every historical process is delivered to succeeding generations as a historical truth. The myth of Horus and Seth must, besides eventual historical conflict, also contain far-reaching anthropological concepts." He goes on to cite other scholars like Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto who traced the conflict to the dualistic symbolism that appears frequently in Egyptian thought. And even Griffiths, who was the strongest proponent of a historical background to the myth in the past fifty years, admitted that the Horus–Set conflict "is steeped in religious concepts" (in The Conflict of Horus and Seth, 1960) and argued strenuously (in The Origins of Osiris and His Cult, 1980) that the Osiris portion of the myth was based in religion and not history.


 * Given that background, I think that saying the myth mostly originated in religious concepts is reasonable. I include that statement to cover those elements of the myth whose origins my sources don't explicitly discuss, most prominently the childhood of Horus. But the general tilt of Egyptological thought in recent decades has been toward religious origins for religious ideas, and away from the habit of prominent but now outdated scholars like Kurt Sethe and Herman Kees of reducing every mythological inconsistency to arguments between political factions. And as far as Horus' childhood is concerned, Tobin and Assmann strongly imply that the Isis-caring-for-Horus motif is based in royal ideology (Isis as the divine queen nurturing and endorsing the future king) with a strong dose of universal sentiments about motherhood. And I can give other examples, too, but now you probably just want me to shut up. The point is, the need to balance completeness against WP:No original research can cause problems, but I think I've found a reasonable balance here. A. Parrot (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A. Parrot, Thanks! However—
 * I don't see that the quote you included clearly states his opinion that the source of the myth was religion. He mentions only the question "... how is it that this... could BEGIN to function as a religious myth?" (emphasis mine), which could be interpreted a number of ways. Is there something before the ellipsis that makes it clear that he is claiming the source of the story was religion? If it does, then I think it would be good to state in the article that "Herman te Velde... says/claims...", in front of the claim that much of the story (whatever that means :) ) is "based in religious ideas". If it doesn't, can we please remove the claim until such a time that a reputable author/scholar of Mythology makes a clear claim to that effect? I think we will find that, oftentimes, the basis of a ritual or myth is actually an historical event, commemorated by ritual or celebration, and by storytelling, and that religious rituals and rites may develop from these. Which is actually the origin of a story or myth – religious ideas or event – is often impossible to ascertain from extant texts and artifacts. Misty MH (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I suppose you may mean that only parts of the story came from religious thought, but it could be read the other way, that the origins of the story are from religion vs. actual events. :) Misty MH (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The way te Velde wrote it, it's difficult to take one passage that says "this is religious", but the context on these two pages make it fairly clear that's what he means. I don't want to quote the whole thing here, as a quote that long might fall afoul of WP's copyright rules. Instead, I changed the citation to pages 76–80, where he says, among similar statements, "Politics does not make religion, but makes use of it. Myths are not constructed like machines by putting separate elements together. Neither are they formed from without like statues. They grow from within and appear spontaneously as an expression of faith. These children of man's spirit are received as divine gifts, as revelation." And, "We cannot, then, fully understand the myth of Horus and Seth from historical events and social conditions before and during the formation of Egyptian civilization. This statement remains valid even if the scanty information we now have about that period were to be considerably supplemented. Its origins must be sought not in political events, but in man and the religious revelation he feels he has received." Is that enough? A. Parrot (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Wow. So then it's not merely from religious thought, he asserts, but, "Myths... appear spontaneously as an expression of faith", and "are received as divine gifts, as revelation." And, "Its origins must be sought ... in man and the religious revelation he feels he has received." That IS significant, and similar to claims for "inspiration" and revelation in other religions' writings or scriptures! So then, that's what it ought to say, regarding origins or presumed origins, preceded by "Herman te Velde..." says this or so. Yes? :) Good find! Misty MH (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Eh, I didn't read your comment carefully enough. I don't want to remove the claim outright, but in the lead I've adjusted it to say "many" instead of "most". In the body it already says "much of the story is based n religious ideas", which if nothing else is supported by the list of examples that take up the rest of the sentence. A. Parrot (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A very poor article
The person who rewrote this article first came to my attention through an edit summary in which he wrote " Maybe THIS will put that "born of a virgin" garbage to rest". Frankly this comment and the subsequent extensive edits that result in the article we have today and his comments on the main talk page "that Osiris myth contains dismemberment, beheading, adultery, necrophilic incest, and coercive homosexual incest" indicates clearly a pov axe grinder. I have already dealt with the issue of Isis as a Virgin above. but I would like to point out material that other scholars treat in substantial depth which this editor largely ignores as part of the Osiris Myth. There is no concievable way he can be unaware of this since it is covered in the very same books he uses as a reference source and this further supports my suspicion that Parrot is misusing/mimicking scholarly techniques in order to ridicule that which he detests. The index entry for Osiris Myth includes “Judgment of the Dead” pp. 161-164 and pp173-177. (Donald Redford et al) It seems to form the single biggest theme in the entries for the Osiris Myth which is hardly surprising since the afterlife of the A.Egyptians was predicated on moral fitness when they appeared before Osiris. “The myth of Osiris, judge of souls in the netherworld and shepherd to immortality, was at the heart of ancient Egypt.” (Osiris, Mojsov, p. xi, 2005) See the article Maat How on earth can any article dealing with the Osiris Myth miss out what was most important to the Ancient Egyptians in their religious texts and instead load it full with the ribald or, as Parrot describes it, “dismemberment, beheading, adultery, necrophilic incest, and coercive homosexual incest“. Even the book which deals with the non-religious texts in some detail doesn't fail to point out that “information in this area [sexual practices] comes primarily from written sources, which, in many cases, advise a far-reaching sexual moderation. The sapiential literature of ancient Egypt contains warnings…..” (Eros on the Nile, Mysliwiec, p. 138, ISBN 0-7156-3302-3) The study of Ancient Egyptian religious texts relating to Osiris, Maat, and the striving for moral truth led Robert Wright, an agnostic, to assert in Evolution of God that "Christians and Muslims matched this power, but they didn't surpass it." By a curious coincidence Plutarch describes how the murder of Osiris by Seth continues throughout time and he singles out one form it takes: "For Isis is a Greek word, and so also is Typhon [Seth], her enemy, who is conceited, as his name implies, because of his ignorance and self-deception. He [Seth] tears to pieces and scatters to the winds the sacred writings, which the goddess collects and puts together and gives into the keeping of those that are initiated into the holy rites, since this consecration, by a strict regimen and by abstinence from many kinds of food and from the lusts of the flesh, curtails licentiousness and the love of pleasure, and induces a habit of patient submission to the stern and rigorous services in shrines, the end and aim of which is the knowledge of Him who is the First, the Lord of All, the Ideal One. [Osiris]” (2.)"

Plutarch would no doubt describe Seth as rejoycing at this article which does indeed tear to pieces Osiris. I would favour reverting the article back to a point before Parrot took his axe Ancient Egyptian civilization. Yt95 (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I know it's been a long time since Yt95 leveled these accusations about me, but it's taken me that long to adjust the article to address the more valid of his or her complaints. I'm writing this response partly to demonstrate that I'm not out to tear Osiris to pieces—to understand the (stupid) impulse behind the remarks I made about the Osiris myth elsewhere, see my explanation here. More importantly, I want to describe what changes I've made since Yt95's accusations and what else needs doing.


 * Originally my rewrite did not specifically say that the Osiris myth, like all myth, is symbolism, not literal truth. I should have stated that to begin with, but in any case, the article says it now. I have added specific mention of more religious texts related to the myth. I've drawn a clearer distinction between them and what you might call the "storytelling" texts like "The Contendings of Horus and Set". All of the mythic episodes mentioned in the article, except for variants that are specifically stated to come from one particular source, are attested in more than one source.


 * These "storytelling" texts are the major remaining sticking point. Their style incorporates lots of details that make the gods seem less like metaphors and more like characters who can look petty or foolish. That style is not exclusive to "Contendings", which is merely the best-known example. It appears frequently in texts from the Late Period and after. Meeks and Favard-Meeks 1996 draws heavily on this type of text.


 * The division between the folklore-like material and "genuine" myth isn't always sharp. The story that Osiris committed adultery with Nephthys is alluded to in the ceremonial texts in which Isis and Nephthys mourn Osiris (see Smith 2009, pp. 74–75). The story of Horus cutting off Isis's head doesn't appear to have any broader meaning in "Contendings", but in other versions Isis replaces her head with that of a cow, so it's effectively an origin myth for Isis's cow-horn headdress. Baines in Loprieno 1996 notes that "Contendings" is much closer to the religious versions of the Osiris myth than other reworkings of the story from the same time period ("The Tale of Two Brothers" and "Truth and Falsehood"). He uses it as an example of the complex ways myth was used in Egyptian literature—serious and humorous at the same time.


 * Scholars have not adequately studied this interaction between metaphorical myth and popular storytelling; the studies by Baines and Goebs that I cite in this article are the only sources I know of that do that in any depth. This deficiency in the scholarship is the major reason I quit working on Egyptian mythology. The sources aren't adequate, so the article can't be.


 * For this article, I do not feel that deficiency in sourcing is a crippling flaw, but it is a drawback. To give a specific example, Yt95 complained of the disconnect between the Osiris who is the paragon of maat and the Osiris who committed adultery and did other things seemingly contrary to maat. That's a valid complaint, but the problem goes back to the Egyptian texts. What is needed is a source that explains the disconnect. I suspect it's at least partly created by those folkloric storytelling details, which don't necessarily conform to the traditional ideology. In religion Osiris was a profound symbol, but in storytelling he became a character, with flaws like any other. (If anyone has access to it, a place to look might be "Seth ist im Recht, Osiris ist im Unrecht!" by Alexandra von Leuven in Zeitschrift fur ägyptische Sprache und Alterunskunde, which describes the adultery with Nephthys and whose title is an allusion to that disconnect. Another possibility is a book by Jessica Levai—which, unfortunately, is a dissertation rather than a fully vetted academic monograph—called Aspects of the Goddess Nephthys, Especially During the Graeco-Roman Period in Egypt. I think I read somewhere that it suggests the adultery story was the creation of Set worshippers.)


 * Not only would I be willing to discuss this issue in the article; I would love to discuss it in the article, because it makes sense of the disconnect between the aspects of Osiris's character and gives a better understanding of Egyptian culture. But until a source gives an explanation, neither I nor anybody can address that problem. A. Parrot (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Plutarch
I think it is more than likely that some of the books in a temple library would have contained accounts of the myths to accompany the rituals. Plutarch would have had to commission a translation of the. A. Alcock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamour (talk • contribs) 12:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015
"Set—whom Plutarch, using Greek names for many of the Egyptian deities, refers to as "Typhon"—conspires against Osiris with seventy-three other people"

The correct number is seventy-two. Possibly in other versions of the myth it was seventy-three but in Plutarch's version it was seventy-two and this is the most-often cited number in Egyptian studies.

207.38.199.125 (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was lumping together the 72 conspirators with the "queen who came from Ethiopia". I've adjusted that passage in the article to say "seventy-two unspecified accomplices, as well as a queen from Ethiopia". A. Parrot (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2016
in the beggining it says that osiris killed set, while its the opposite

188.36.251.246 (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to be misreading the text. The second and third sentences say Osiris is murdered and that Set is the murderer. A. Parrot (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)