Osiris - A real Pharaoh?

[jaylemurph]

People are having too much fun discussing beer. So I am not yet moving on to other topics about Egyptian society.

I wasn't aware you were either a mod or the OP, so I'm confused how you have the power to tell Kenemet what to talk about. Do you find this works in the real world, as well?

Don't be a spoil sport.

...said the pot to the kettle.

--Jaylemurph

[docyabut2]

All this talk of Beer makes me want to have one :)but really was Osiris - A real Pharaoh? or like the Greeks, some so called Gods were perhaps a made up person, a face and figure in stone with a personality ?How can you tell which ones were based on real people?

Edited August 22, 2015 by docyabut2

[Kenemet]

People are having too much fun discussing beer. So I am not yet moving on to other topics about Egyptian society.

We are, indeed. I hope we have convinced you now that barley was used for beer and that Osiris is connected with vegetation but that Neper is the god of barley.

But you can read the following link if you are interested. I posted it previously, to demonstrate that 18th Dynasty Egypt was desperate to salvage their self-image. 18th Dynasty Egypt took an unoccupied rock in southern Nubia, and declared that it had been the origin of Egyptian religion.

http://www.jebelbarkal.org/

They were hardly "desperate to salvage their self image." The rock was designated by the priestly entourage of Thutmose I. You may recall that he's the grandson of Ahmose I who expelled the Hyksos and united Upper and Lower Egypt. He ruled for 20 years. He was succeeded by his son, Amenhotep I (who ruled for another 20 years.) During Amenhotep's reign, more temples were rebuilt in the north and started conquering Nubia. He established towns as far south as the 3rd cataract.

Thutmose I (who you are trying to posit as "salvaging self image" was his son who took the reins after the family had held control of upper and lower Egypt for over 40 years. The country was stable, Hyksos were long gone, and royal building projects dotted the land. Thutmose began conquering other territory and extended his rule northward and around the edges as well as south to the 1st cataract.

Jebel el Barkal does establish Amun's dominance over Nubia and firmly established it as part of Egypt. Rather than "salvaging self image", he's putting his "stamp of ownership" on the land.

And of course he's followed by Hatshepsut and then Thutmose II, the "Napoleon of Egypt." They weren't doubtful. If anyone contradicted their beliefs, the Egyptians would simply have told the foreigners that their beliefs were mistaken and it was quite obvious that the Egyptians were right.

[kmt_sesh]

People are having too much fun discussing beer. So I am not yet moving on to other topics about Egyptian society.

...

Don't be a spoil sport. Let the beer discussion play out for now.

Actually, let's not let it play out. I agree the discussion about beer is interesting, and it's a discussion worthy unto itself. So why not start a new thread on it?

But this discussion is about Osiris and whether he was a real living king at one time. And we can extend that to other topics directly related to the subject matter, such as the observable origins of this god.

But talk of ancient and modern beer is not relevant.

Editing to add: I'm not posting this for the heck of it. Consider it a formal reminder to all: let's get back on topic. Thanks.

Edited August 23, 2015 by kmt_sesh

[atalante]

The alter-ego of Osiris, from Egypt's Dynasties 0-4, was partially suppressed after Dynasty 5.

Historical data (that led up to choosing the epithet Osiris) can be reconciled:

The name of Re had not been used before the last king of Dynasty 2. But previously, the kings of Dynasty 1 had already called themselves "Horus". And the Ennead was devised as a piece of rhetoric by Dynasty 5.

The priesthood of Re, in Dynasty 5, wanted to give themselves a tradition that extended farther back in time -- to before the end of Egypt's 2nd Dynasty, when the god Re first received its name, Re.

[atalante]

quote from: http://www.virtual-e...MM.00440.html

Osiris

Ions (1968:54) hypothesizes that the cult of Osiris was originally brought to Egypt by Syrians (probably in predynastic times) as they settled in the delta town of Busiris, where the god Andjety was the dominant local god. There, it appears that Osiris was given the royal regalia (crook and flail) of Andjety and was worshipped as a local god of fertility, responsible for the success of crops. From these humble beginnings, Osiris rose to become one of the most prominent gods in the Egyptian pantheon.

By the end of Dynasty 5, the cult of Osiris may have reached such a level of popularity that the priests of Heliopolis, who up to then enjoyed complete control over national theological doctrine, felt a need to take counter-measures to remain in control of this newcoming god. Instead of trying to suppress him, they incorporated Osiris in the family of the solar god, limiting his prestige by making him a great grand-child of Atum. If their aim had been to curb the expansion of the Osirian cult, they were less than successful. Orisis would keep growing in importance by associating with other deities, eventually absorbing their powers and prerogatives.

"… his earliest appearance yet attested [is] on a block from the reign of King Izezy [Djedkare Izezi, penultimate king of Dynasty 5] which shows the head and part of the upper torso of a god, above whom are the hieroglyphic symbols of Osiris’s name" (Hart 1986:151). But depictions of Osiris remain rare until Dynasty 12 (Budge 1973:[1]31).

In earlier dynasties, the traditional dogma was that the king became a god—the God Horus—upon his coronation, then joined the God Re in his solar ship upon his death, and sailed the firmament for eternity. The next king would in turn become Horus. At some point during dynasty 5, the dogma changed radically, calling for the deceased king to become Osiris upon his death. Not only had the cult of Osiris reached national recognition, but it had become part of the very nature of kingship. Although this relationship between king and Osiris was a new development, the Egyptians sought to make it appear original. Indeed, the legend of Osiris places him as the ancestral king of Egypt.

There is some evidence that Old Kingdom kings were not completely at ease with this new tradition....

The legend of Osiris evolved constantly over 2500 years, spinning off many variants.

endquote

Edited August 24, 2015 by atalante

[atalante]

quote from: http://www.touregypt.net/godsofegypt/andjety.htm

Andjety - a precursor of Osiris

Andjety in his anthropomorphic form was originally worshipped in the mid-Delta in the Lower ninth nome. Andjety (meaning 'he of Andjet', i.e. the town of Busiris) was the precursor of Osiris at the cult center of Busiris. The iconography of this god persuasively argues for his being the forerunner of Osiris. Andjety holds the two scepters in the shape of a 'crook' and a 'flail', insignia which are Osiris' symbols of dominion. Also his high conical crown decorated with two feathers is clearly related to the 'atef' crown of Osiris.

As early as the beginning of 4th Dynasty King Sneferu, the builder of the first true pyramid tomb, is carved wearing this crown of Andjety. The close relationship of the god to the monarch is is also evident from the earliest references in the Pyramid Texts, where the king's power as a universal ruler is enhanced by his being equated to Andjety 'presiding over the eastern districts'. Perhaps Andjety is an embodiment of sovereignty and its attendant regalia. As such he would readily be absorbed into the nature of Osiris and by extension into the pharaoh himself. The most likely explanation of his epithet, 'bull of vultures', found in theMiddle KingdomCoffin Texts, is that it emphasizes his role as a procreative consort of major goddesses.

Andjety figures in a funerary context as well. The notion that he is responsible for rebirth in the Afterlife is probably the reason for the substitution for the two feathers of a bicornate uterus in early writings of his name in the Pyramid Texts. In the Underworld too there is an obvious identification between Andjety and Osiris, as ruler. Hence in the Temple of Seti I at Abydos, the king is depicted burning incense to the god Osiris-Andjety who holds a 'crook' scepter, wears two feathers in his headband and is accompanied by Isis.

endquote

[Kenemet]

quote from: http://www.virtual-e...MM.00440.html

Ions (1968:54) hypothesizes that the cult of Osiris was originally brought to Egypt by Syrians (probably in predynastic times) as they settled in the delta town of Busiris, where the god Andjety was the dominant local god.

A lot more material has been discovered since 1968. Ions' idea was never that widely accepted and I don't see him cited in modern literature. A more recent book (and well cited) on Osiris is Griffiths, John Gwyn. The origins of Osiris and his cult. Vol. 40. Brill, 1980. By 1980, the suggestion that Osiris was brought to Egypt by Syrians has vanished.

By the end of Dynasty 5, the cult of Osiris may have reached such a level of popularity that the priests of Heliopolis, who up to then enjoyed complete control over national theological doctrine,

Can you give me some sort of reference that the priests of Helioplis "enjoyed complete control over national theological doctrine"? To the best of my knowledge and from what I've been taught, there was NO "national theological doctrine." Can you give me a recent scholarly reference for this?

There is some evidence that Old Kingdom kings were not completely at ease with this new tradition....

Kindly cite some texts (from the pharaohs themselves.)

[atalante]

[/font][/color]

Can you give me some sort of reference that the priests of Helioplis "enjoyed complete control over national theological doctrine"? To the best of my knowledge and from what I've been taught, there was NO "national theological doctrine." Can you give me a recent scholarly reference for this?

Heliopolis was the main cult center for the god Re. The high priests of Re were at Heliopolis (including Imhotep).

quote from: http://www.britannica.com/place/Heliopolis-ancient-city-Egypt

Heliopolis, (Greek), Egyptian Iunu or Onu (“Pillar City”), biblical On, one of the most ancient Egyptian cities and the seat of worship of the sun god, Re. It was the capital of the 15th nome of Lower Egypt, but Heliopolis was important as a religious rather than a political centre. During the New Kingdom (c. 1539–1075 bce) its great temple of Re was second in size only to that of Amon at Thebes, and its priesthood wielded great influence, particularly during the 5th dynasty (c. 2465–c. 2325 bce), when the worship of Re became the state cult.

[Kenemet]

Heliopolis was the main cult center for the god Re. The high priests of Re were at Heliopolis (including Imhotep).

quote from: http://www.britannic...ient-city-Egypt

Heliopolis, (Greek), Egyptian Iunu or Onu (“Pillar City”), biblical On, one of the most ancient Egyptian cities and the seat of worship of the sun god, Re. It was the capital of the 15th nome of Lower Egypt, but Heliopolis was important as a religious rather than a political centre. During the New Kingdom (c. 1539–1075 bce) its great temple of Re was second in size only to that of Amon at Thebes, and its priesthood wielded great influence, particularly during the 5th dynasty (c. 2465–c. 2325 bce), when the worship of Re became the state cult.

The "state cult" here refers to the worship of Re by the ruling family and the association of Re with the ruling family. However, you will find that the Ogdoad also had quite a bit of power, as did Ptah (patron of Memphis) and Amun of Thebes (who eventually merges with Re to become Amlun-Re.) HOWEVER... you maintained that prior to the 5th dynasty, the priests of Heliopolis dominated the religious thought of the nation.

Your quote above does not show that they dominated the Egyptian religion before Dynasty 5.

If Heliopolis had "complete control over the theology" they would not have allowed these other cosmogenies (plus still other minor ones) to exist. This does not present any evidence that Osiris was a real person elevated to deity status (the topic of this thread.) This does not support Osiris being a Syrian deity (which I feel is not supported by any evidence) You have not shown any evidence that Pharaohs "were not at ease with the new tradition" (Osiris.)

I feel you are making a lot of conclusions with only a brief examination of the texts.

[kmt_sesh]

It would be more correct to state the priests held a lot of influence in the Heliopolis region of Lower Egypt, which would've indeed included the state capital of Memphis. In Dynasty 5 we can definitely observe a growing popularity for the cult of Re, at least among the elite. This is when a number of kings built their sun temples as well as pyramids (such as at Abu Ghurab).

But I fully agree with Kenemet about avoiding the idea of theology in the modern sense of religious dogma. There really was no such observable phenomenon in ancient Egypt. Those cults which held sway in Lower Egypt would've been of little to no relevance to cults from the bottom end of Upper Egypt and many points in between, which maintained their own cults and worship of specific gods.

Groupings and families of deities existed in numerous areas of Egypt. The Ennead of Heliopolis was only one of them, albeit prominent. It's not that the priests felt pressured or forced to fit Osiris into the Ennead; a more logical understanding is that, as the deity emerged and grew in popularity in the late Old Kingdom, it simply became a religious necessity. It's my understanding the extant evidence confirms Osiris was absent from the Ennead prior to the late Old Kingdom.

I've mentioned it before but the arguments for a foreign origin for Osiris are old. One sees the idea still popping up now and then, but there is simply no evidence to support it. One can often identify the foreign traits of a god to the extent that the foreign deity himself is identifiable in the "borrowed" version. This really isn't observable in Osiris, in either guise or name, who seems purely Egyptian through and through.

It's long been a belief of mine that it's possible Osiris did exist in Egypt in earlier times, but as a local minor deity of no significant repute. There is a great deal about minor regional deities and genii for whom we have little to no knowledge. I have no evidence to support his claim, and it's merely opinion on my part, but in my way of thinking it makes more sense than trying to force Osiris as an import (if for no other reason than that there is even less evidence for him outside of Egypt than there is inside Egypt prior to Dynasty 5).

In any case I'm glad we're back on track.

[Windowpane]

I've mentioned it before but the arguments for a foreign origin for Osiris are old. One sees the idea still popping up now and then, but there is simply no evidence to support it. One can often identify the foreign traits of a god to the extent that the foreign deity himself is identifiable in the "borrowed" version. This really isn't observable in Osiris, in either guise or name, who seems purely Egyptian through and through.

Nevertheless, the theme of a king who, having been murdered by his brother, then goes to rule over a kingdom of the dead is often encountered in other ancient traditions. Is this perhaps a concept common to different cultures in the ancient world, rather than necessarily the result of some form of diffusion?

[questionmark]

Nevertheless, the theme of a king who, having been murdered by his brother, then goes to rule over a kingdom of the dead is often encountered in other ancient traditions. Is this perhaps a concept common to different cultures in the ancient world, rather than necessarily the result of some form of diffusion?

There is more than one king/prince murdered by a relative, and strangely none of them engendered a god afterwards (Well, maybe Julius Ceasar, but he was not a king). So that argument is pretty mute unless you can show its factuality. To become a god it must either be Raison d' Etat (i.e. the late Roman Empire) or you must be remembered for your beneficial existence. Both of those leave traces that can be easily be reconstructed by history and archaeology. In the case of Osiris we have neither.

[Windowpane]

There is more than one king/prince murdered by a relative, and strangely none of them engendered a god afterwards (Well, maybe Julius Ceasar, but he was not a king). So that argument is pretty mute unless you can show its factuality. To become a god it must either be Raison d' Etat (i.e. the late Roman Empire) or you must be remembered for your beneficial existence. Both of those leave traces that can be easily be reconstructed by history and archaeology. In the case of Osiris we have neither.

I was thinking of the Indo-European creation myth. See here (especially Chs. 3 and 4, which, regrettably, aren't all accessible in the preview); see also "The Indo-European Myth of Creation": Bruce Lincoln, History of Religions, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Nov., 1975), pp. 121-145; and "Remus et Frater", Jaan Puhvel History of Religions, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Nov., 1975), pp. 146-157.

The details of this myth vary from each other, and even more so from the Osiris myth. Nevertheless, it's interesting to compare the central motif in these cases: the killing of a king by his brother, and the dead king then going on to rule over a land of the dead.

[questionmark]

I was thinking of the Indo-European creation myth. See here (especially Chs. 3 and 4, which, regrettably, aren't all accessible in the preview); see also "The Indo-European Myth of Creation": Bruce Lincoln, History of Religions, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Nov., 1975), pp. 121-145; and "Remus et Frater", Jaan Puhvel History of Religions, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Nov., 1975), pp. 146-157.

The details of this myth vary from each other, and even more so from the Osiris myth. Nevertheless, it's interesting to compare the central motif in these cases: the killing of a king by his brother, and the dead king then going on to rule over a land of the dead.

It may be that those myths go much further into prehistory than we dare to dream, we are not saying that because we can't prove it. So it is also possible that all pantheons of Gods are amalgamated from believes that various people bought with them when they first settled places as groups.

There are too many possible explanations, but there generally are very few that you can actually demonstrate by the facts on the ground. And that is where the buck ends for science. After that all that is left is speculation... where yours is as valid as mine.

[jaylemurph]

I was thinking of the Indo-European creation myth. See here (especially Chs. 3 and 4, which, regrettably, aren't all accessible in the preview); see also "The Indo-European Myth of Creation": Bruce Lincoln, History of Religions, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Nov., 1975), pp. 121-145; and "Remus et Frater", Jaan Puhvel History of Religions, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Nov., 1975), pp. 146-157.

The details of this myth vary from each other, and even more so from the Osiris myth. Nevertheless, it's interesting to compare the central motif in these cases: the killing of a king by his brother, and the dead king then going on to rule over a land of the dead.

The Cambridge School investigated the same issue, but decided it was just a step that all cultures went through in their inevitable transformation into late 19th Century Britain, the apex of all possible human culture.

Me, I tend to agree with QM, though.

--Jaylemurph

[Kenemet]

I was thinking of the Indo-European creation myth. See here (especially Chs. 3 and 4, which, regrettably, aren't all accessible in the preview); see also "The Indo-European Myth of Creation": Bruce Lincoln, History of Religions, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Nov., 1975), pp. 121-145; and "Remus et Frater", Jaan Puhvel History of Religions, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Nov., 1975), pp. 146-157.

The details of this myth vary from each other, and even more so from the Osiris myth. Nevertheless, it's interesting to compare the central motif in these cases: the killing of a king by his brother, and the dead king then going on to rule over a land of the dead.

Y'all are aware, right, that Roman history (mythology) begins around 700 BC... some 2000 years AFTER the first mention of Osiris. It's close to the final version, though (Egypt,New Kingdom.)

[kmt_sesh]

Y'all are aware, right, that Roman history (mythology) begins around 700 BC... some 2000 years AFTER the first mention of Osiris. It's close to the final version, though (Egypt,New Kingdom.)

"Y'all," Kenemet?

Your Texas is showing.

[Windowpane]

Y'all are aware, right, that Roman history (mythology) begins around 700 BC... some 2000 years AFTER the first mention of Osiris. It's close to the final version, though (Egypt,New Kingdom.)

Puhvel's research suggested that the linguistic evidence showed that Roman mythology (e.g., Romulus and Remus) incorporated some elements of Indo-European myth. (Not everyone agrees with him - e.g., Wiseman). However, many foundation myths (Lincoln looked at Celtic myth and Norse myth) do contain comparable elements, whose origins possibly lie in Proto-Indo-European tradition.

So why does a similar theme occur in AE myth? Does the tale of Osiris and Seth simply reflect the fact that fratricide was perhaps a fact of life in ancient societies and cultures, whether in Europe or the Middle East?

[Kenemet]

Puhvel's research suggested that the linguistic evidence showed that Roman mythology (e.g., Romulus and Remus) incorporated some elements of Indo-European myth. (Not everyone agrees with him - e.g., Wiseman). However, many foundation myths (Lincoln looked at Celtic myth and Norse myth) do contain comparable elements, whose origins possibly lie in Proto-Indo-European tradition.

So why does a similar theme occur in AE myth? Does the tale of Osiris and Seth simply reflect the fact that fratricide was perhaps a fact of life in ancient societies and cultures, whether in Europe or the Middle East?

First, we should point out that the timeframes are very different. Records of what the Celts and Norse believed do not come from 3000 BC, but from 30 BC. Evidence of what the Romans believed comes from the period 700 BC and onward. We have no record of what they actually believed at around 3,000 BC when the Egyptians developed hieroglyphs and began writing. There is no clear archaeological evidence on it, either.

Secondly, the Celts never developed writing -- what we know of their beliefs is mostly secondhand (from Romans) and from people who weren't a part of that culture's religious traditions. Norse traditions come from their written material, which dates to around 700 AD or thereabouts; earlier reports of their traditions come from Romans.

There may be a Roman cultural bias/blindness/preference for what was recorded/choice in the material preserved by the Romans.

The Proto-Indio-European culture is believed to have existed about 3500 BC, but there is not much evidence for it. In any case, it was developing a long way away from the Egyptians.

Do I think the story reflects power struggles within ruling families? Yes, the story idea may come from there as well as family feuds (not as prominent in Egyptian thought) and other elements. It may also symbolize a period of conflict between Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt... however, the story as we tell it is a story that evolved over 3,000 years and Plutarch's recorded version (with its Roman bias) is an endpoint version and not the original story that was hinted at in the Pyramid Texts.

[Kenemet]

"Y'all," Kenemet?

Your Texas is showing.

Moi?

[atalante]

quote from: http://www.touregypt...ypt/andjety.htm

Andjety - a precursor of Osiris

Andjety in his anthropomorphic form was originally worshipped in the mid-Delta in the Lower ninth nome. Andjety (meaning 'he of Andjet', i.e. the town of Busiris) was the precursor of Osiris at the cult center of Busiris. The iconography of this god persuasively argues for his being the forerunner of Osiris. Andjety holds the two scepters in the shape of a 'crook' and a 'flail', insignia which are Osiris' symbols of dominion. Also his high conical crown decorated with two feathers is clearly related to the 'atef' crown of Osiris.

As early as the beginning of 4th Dynasty King Sneferu, the builder of the first true pyramid tomb, is carved wearing this crown of Andjety. The close relationship of the god to the monarch is is also evident from the earliest references in the Pyramid Texts, where the king's power as a universal ruler is enhanced by his being equated to Andjety 'presiding over the eastern districts'. Perhaps Andjety is an embodiment of sovereignty and its attendant regalia. As such he would readily be absorbed into the nature of Osiris and by extension into the pharaoh himself. The most likely explanation of his epithet, 'bull of vultures', found in the Middle KingdomCoffin Texts, is that it emphasizes his role as a procreative consort of major goddesses.

Andjety figures in a funerary context as well. The notion that he is responsible for rebirth in the Afterlife is probably the reason for the substitution for the two feathers of a bicornate uterus in early writings of his name in the Pyramid Texts. In the Underworld too there is an obvious identification between Andjety and Osiris, as ruler. Hence in the Temple of Seti I at Abydos, the king is depicted burning incense to the god Osiris-Andjety who holds a 'crook' scepter, wears two feathers in his headband and is accompanied by Isis.

endquote

Andjeti was the precursor of Osiris; and Snefru's association with Andjeti was shortly before the name Osiris started to be used.

Some totems of Upper Egypt (from Dynasties 0-2) appear in the Ennead. The Ennead's connection to Upper Egypt is more obvious if the names Osiris and Isis are blanked out in the Ennead (while retaining a position for Horus the Younger, as a presumed son of the 2 blanked deities), and then a corresponding mythical husband and wife from Upper Egypt are substituted for the names Osiris and Isis.

The kings of Dynasty 1 had chosen to identify themselves as Horus the Younger. Therefore by correlating Ennead names to places and events in Dynasties 0-2, it becomes possible to see how the name Osiris was spliced into a fairly conventional mythical representation of Dynasties 0-2.

Edited August 29, 2015 by atalante

[atalante]

It would be more correct to state the priests held a lot of influence in the Heliopolis region of Lower Egypt, which would've indeed included the state capital of Memphis. In Dynasty 5 we can definitely observe a growing popularity for the cult of Re, at least among the elite. This is when a number of kings built their sun temples as well as pyramids (such as at Abu Ghurab).

But I fully agree with Kenemet about avoiding the idea of theology in the modern sense of religious dogma. There really was no such observable phenomenon in ancient Egypt. Those cults which held sway in Lower Egypt would've been of little to no relevance to cults from the bottom end of Upper Egypt and many points in between, which maintained their own cults and worship of specific gods.

Groupings and families of deities existed in numerous areas of Egypt. The Ennead of Heliopolis was only one of them, albeit prominent. It's not that the priests felt pressured or forced to fit Osiris into the Ennead; a more logical understanding is that, as the deity emerged and grew in popularity in the late Old Kingdom, it simply became a religious necessity. It's my understanding the extant evidence confirms Osiris was absent from the Ennead prior to the late Old Kingdom.

..........

In the development of dynastic Egypt's society, the Heliopolitan Ennead was the dominant cosmogony during dynasties 5 and 6.

(By contrast, the Ogdoad cosmogony involved the god Amon, who did not become prominent in dynastic Egyptian society until the Middle and New Kingdoms.)

The following link goes to a very informative article about the leading Egyptian cosmogonies. But it is especially relevant for pointing out that the Heliopolitan Ennead was the dominant cosmogony in Egypt at the time when written literature started to be used in Egypt (i.e. Pyramid texts).

quote from: https://bible.org/ar...-creation-myths

HELIOPOLIS

The Pyramid Texts contain the earliest known cosmogonic expressions of the Egyptians.16Priests of the temple in Heliopolis recorded these hieroglyphic texts inside the pyramids of Unis, Teti, Pepi I, Merenre I, Pepi II17 (kings of dynasties 5 and 6, ca. 2375-2184 BC) 18 From these texts comes the knowledge of the Heliopolitan cosmogony. In Heliopolis, nine gods constitute the Great Ennead.19

footnote19 The Heliopolitan cosmogony consists of two, and possibly three groups of deities. Samuel A. B. Mercer, The Religion of Ancient Egypt (London: Luzac & Co., 1949), 276. The Pyramid Texts refer to these groups as psd.t ‘Ennead’ (lit. “the nine”). As the name suggests, nine gods compose an Ennead. However, a few startling exceptions exist. The Theban Ennead totals fifteen gods, and the Ennead of Abydos only numbers seven. Mercer, Religion of Ancient Egypt, 276, n 9. Initially, only one Ennead existed and as time went on the term became more loosely applied to any group of Egyptian deities. According to Pyramid Texts 177 and 178, both a great Ennead as well as a little Ennead exists. The labels ‘great’ and ‘little’ refer to prominence rather than size, and also refer to early versus late traditions. See James P. Allen, “The Celestial Realm,” in Ancient Egypt, ed. David P. Silverman (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 123, for a fuller explanation of the Egyptian concept of the Ennead.

endquote

Edited September 5, 2015 by atalante

[atalante]

Egyptian views about Osiris underwent a major shift when the Hermopolitan cosmogony became dominant in Egypt (instead of the Heliopolitan cosmogony). The time of this changeover is approximately the rise of Egypt's Middle Kingdom.

The link I gave in my previous post ( https://bible.org/ar...-creation-myths ) shows that the Heliopolitan cosmogony had treated Osiris, together with the other features of Heliopolitan outlooks, as elements of nature. In this Old Kingdom outlook, human beings originated when Upper Egypt (as personified by the potter god Khnum of Elephantine) made the first humans out of the clay of Upper Egypt, on the banks of the Nile river.

By contrast, Middle Kingdom and its Hermopolitan cosmogony reduces Osiris geographically -- by tying Osiris to one specific tomb at Abydos in Upper Egypt. Meanwhile, the Middle Kingdom's Hermopolitan cosmogony elevated a previously obscure deity, Amon, to the status of a force of nature. In the Middle Kingdom's outlook (as reported by many sources about Egyptology), Osiris became associated with a "mystery religion"; and religious ceremonies were held at one specific 1st dynasty tomb in Upper Egypt where allegedly Osiris had been buried.

(The link above also cites scholars who demonstrate that the Hebrew concept of creation, in the biblical book Genesis, was based on the Hermopolitan cosmogony -- with the important exception that Genesis chapter 1 claims the Hebrew god Elohim "created" light BEFORE creating Amon and the other details of Egyptian Hermopolitan cosmogony.)

Edited September 7, 2015 by atalante

[Kenemet]

I think you've gotten far afield of your original thesis with this section.

The link I gave in my previous post ( https://bible.org/ar...-creation-myths ) shows that the Heliopolitan cosmogony had treated Osiris, together with the other features of Heliopolitan outlooks, as elements of nature.

I really disagree with this and also with the student scholar's opinion that the Egyptians deified nature. Further problems are revealed by the student-scholar's use of "the pyramid texts" collective instead of examining what each individual pyramid had to say (they're all different.)

In this Old Kingdom outlook, human beings originated when Upper Egypt (as personified by the potter god Khnum of Elephantine) made the first humans out of the clay of Upper Egypt, on the banks of the Nile river.

This should be "In the Heliopolan tradition."

By contrast, Middle Kingdom and its Hermopolitan cosmogony reduces Osiris geographically -- by tying Osiris to one specific tomb at Abydos in Upper Egypt.

There is also the tradition of the places where pieces of Osiris' body were found -- I'm not sure if these were solely in Upper Egypt of not. Only the tomb is traditionally located geographically - if you asked anyone where he was, they would say he was in the Underworld. His body was not in Abydos. Only the tomb was.

In the Middle Kingdom's outlook (as reported by many sources about Egyptology), Osiris became associated with a "mystery religion"; and religious ceremonies were held at one specific 1st dynasty tomb in Upper Egypt where allegedly Osiris had been buried.

I think we have different concepts of "mystery religion." Mystery religions do not appear until Greek times. They involve secret rites and initiations and there are no such Egyptian traditions.

(The link above also cites scholars who demonstrate that the Hebrew concept of creation, in the biblical book Genesis, was based on the Hermopolitan cosmogony -- with the important exception that Genesis chapter 1 claims the Hebrew god Elohim "created" light BEFORE creating Amon and the other details of Egyptian Hermopolitan cosmogony.)

Actually, your scholar is a student presenting a student paper at a conference. They're held to different standards.

But the real problem lies in the timeframe, the distance, and the cultures. The Hebrews really don't get started until fairly late, and the oldest books of the Bible (Job) contains nothing Egyptian in philosophy. The real flowering of the Jewish Biblical literature starts around the time of the Babylonian Captivity. The major traditions appear during the Kingdom of Judah (900 BC and thereabouts) when the Jews and Egypt were NOT friendly.

There is no motive for them to adopt the cosmogony of their enemies. Adopting traditions from their allies makes sense, but not from their enemies.