Talk:Osiris

date in first paragraph

Is this date BC? I know nothing about this topic, but feel this should be added if true, even if the context makes it clear.

Done. Don't be afraid to edit articles, be bold! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is NO reference to Osiris on the Palermo Stone. The earliest inscription that refers to Osiris occurs under the reign of Isesi, roughly 2370 BC. Contrary to the (ridiculous) claims made in this article there are references in the funeral text of Unas to Osiris coming back to life (rather than reigning as someone dead, in the land of the dead, whatever that would mean) and of ascending to the heavens, probably due to an identification with Orion. Thus note "These four pure reed-floats which You set down for Osiris when he ascended to the sky, so that he might ferry over to the Cool Waters with his son Horus at his fingers, so that he might foster him and cause him to appear as a great god in the Cool Waters." and "Nut, this Osiris here is your son, whom You have caused to be restored that he may live." But seriously, this is one of the worst articles I have read on Wikipedia. It needs to be rewritten by an Egyptologist who knows the subject. The claims about the dissimilarity of Osiris and Christ are ridden with POV nonsense. Eluard (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right this article is a complete mess. There is a lot of debate as to exactly how the Osirian 'resurrection' is to be interpreted. Is he reborn as a a truly living being or just in the sense of being a King in the dwat? The sections you quote from Unas could be read either way and it seems that the only recorded act of Osiris post mortem is to be to conceive Horus through Isis - who then becomes King in his place. Apepch7 (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Apepch7 that there is a debate on how to understand the Osirian resurrection, but the correct role for an encyclopedia is simply to report that debate, whereas the previous page went out of its way to polemicize. As another matter it might be mentioned that in the funeral text of Unas it is Seth and Thoth who together have murdered Osiris, and that Geb, Nut, Tefnut and indeed all of Osiris's parents unite together with Isis and Nephthys to bring Osiris back to life. The act of "resurrection" is not Isis's act alone. Also surely the act of carrying Unas across to the West is a posthumous act, accomplished with Horus. The early story of Osiris is distinctly different from the Plutarch story, and it would be good if this were noted. At any rate I am glad to see the Palermo Stone claim corrected --- that has been reproduced all over the internet thanks to this mistake in Wikipedia. Cheers. Eluard (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll just add that any problem with conceiving of Osiris as "alive" post resurrection is also a problem with conceiving of Jesus/Christ as alive post-resurrection. There will always be a problem with whether eternal life is a form of life. But if Jesus is alive post-resurrection then I would say that Osiris is also. As far as Wikipedia goes this philosophical question should not get in the way of reporting the debate. Eluard (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus (after death) is supposed to have walked around, done various things and spoken to people and so on, while there is no such equivalent in the Osiris myth (OK or Plutarch). Thoth's role in both the death of Osiris and in his rebirth and the healing of Horus shows that this is a myth which needs to be understood in the context of egyptian religion and cannot be transplanted into other systems of thought. Apepch7 (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And is not fathering a son an act on a par with walking about, and talking? At any rate the dating in the first paragraph is still ludicrously inaccurate. There are no references to Osiris in the First Dynasty and the title Khenti-Amentiu is not a reference to Osiris, but to Anubis. There are no references to Osiris until the Fifth Dynasty. This has been orthodox Egyptological lore since the 1920's and it is appalling that Wikipedia is propagating nonsense in this way. Osiris is certainly not one of the oldest gods --- the major gods appear before him. If this isn't cleared up soon by the editors of this page then I will do it myself. Eluard (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the sources I've seen (The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Richard Wilkinson's Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, and John Griffiths' Origins of Osiris and His Cult) treat Khenti-Amentiu in as a deity separate from both Osiris and Anubis. In any case, you're right that Osiris isn't mentioned until the Fifth Dynasty. Once he showed up, he apparently took on the characteristics of many other gods, including Khenty-Amentiu. At some point Osiris totally absorbed him, and the name from then on was merely a title of Osiris. A. Parrot (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe there are also a lot of current sources that indicate Khenti-Amentiu was an epithet or older name of Ausar, but in fact the same mythological personage or deity, i.e., the father of Heru (Horus). The name Ausar (Osiris) was probably added on to this same deity later. I will try to find specific sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, just found one, if you want I'm sure I can find plenty more. John Ray, Reflections of Osiris: Lives from Ancient Egypt. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just read this and I don't think it supports your interpretation. There is a big difference between a tentative suggestion made by a scholar and a definite assertion. Eluard (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read the book in question and it contains quite a lot of interesting but controversial statements which are basically valid but unproven opinion - no problem stating this writer holds this view but its not fact or even mainstream interpretation.Apepch7 (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok so could we please correct the introduction to reflect the fact that Khenti-Amentiu was later identified with Osiris but that there was no hint of an identification earlier (and how could there have been? Osiris was not so much as mentioned earlier!) This issue is vital to the reader of this article. The greatest unsolved mystery about Osiris is his sudden appearance in the 5th Dynasty. The big debate is as to whether he was an autocthonous deity or imported from somewhere else, by marriage, or elite take-over, or simply from trade or travellers. No one knows the answer and it is appalling that Wikipedia is presenting a possibility (he was always there just oddly unmentioned!) as though it were fact. If the editor who holds this view believes he has an academically credible case then let him publish it. Otherwise keep these opinions out of Wikipedia. Eluard (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Apepch7 that it shouldn't be a problem to attribute the viewpoint, which I have seen in a number of sources; competing viewpoints are also certainly welcome, if they too are similarly attributed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not in the first paragraph, which should stick to known facts. Eluard (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Osiris is mentioned in a tomb from slightly earlier but the main reference is the Pyramid texts of Unas - end of Dyn 5. BUT these texts are probably copied from earlier papyrii. However I agree the article should not say Osiris is one of the oldest gods because he isn't. I've read Griffiths and agree with the point that Osiris absorbed earlier gods. The length of the article makes my heart sink when I start to think about an edit - it needs drastic surgery. Osiris seems to have been re-animated specifically for the purpose of begetting Horus - he doesn't do anything else - so this is not like Jesus (unless in the general sense of conquest of death). I hope the lengthy arguments on the Horus page about all this will not spread here. Apepch7 (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is good to see that there is a convergence of agreement on the dating issue, which is the main thing that I'd like to see clarified. I have no axe to grind on the similarities or dissimilarities between Osiris or Christ. The debate should just be fairly reported — that is the only job that this Wiki has. But the dating is crucial, as is the misreporting of the Plutarch source material (Plutarch is not available in a convenient English translation and hasn't been for over 100 years, so most people who report Plutarch haven't read what he says. He doesn't claim that Isis brought Osiris back to life, merely that she collected his limbs except his penis, which was eaten by a sea-perch, whereafter the fish was abominated by the Egyptians.) Eluard (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mystery Religion

A Mystery Religion is a cult whose beliefs and practices are fully known only to initiates. That may have been a typical Greek and later Roman idea, and possibly not Egyptian. The cult of Isis and Osiris was not a mystery religion, until Greek visitors in Persian and Hellenic times started off this idea, and until the Greeks and Romans took over the cult. The writings of Diodorus should not be considered as fully objective history. Diodorus (and others before and after him, Herodotus...) set out with the idea to prove that the Greek religion (and science, philosophy...) drew from ancient Egyptian sources, and the Egyptian priests, humiliated by the Persians, and Macedonians were only happy to beef up their own national pride by telling stories that Diodorus & al. wanted to hear. They saw similarities between Egypt and Greece everywhere, and did not mention important differences, as that did not fit in their ideas. As there were no Mysteries, or no real Egyptian "philosophy", it had to be made up in later times. The work of the Egyptian half-god Hermes Trismegistus was identified as a Greek work (hence some kind of forgery) by Casaubon in the 16th century. But the Egyptian Mystery idea had become a myth on its own, giving input to Rosicrucian and Freemason rites. As it does not really exist, it is even subject of conspiracy theories, like those around Afrocentrism: "the Europeans have wiped out all trace of it". Concretely: we might change the title into "Hellenistic influence: Mystery religion" and make it clear that the Greeks brought in this idea?

You should sign your contribution with four of ~. I think it completely correct that the term mystery religion is not justified in the article, which is a bit all over the place anyway. It is better to try to understand Egyptian Religion from the Egyptian religion itself as it is possible that the Greek commentators did not understand it anyway. Jeremy Naydler's book on the Shamanic Wisdom in the pyramid Texts is quite good on this I think. Apepch7 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Orion, Osiris

I would seriously hesitate to mention that Osiris is related to Orion without citation in this article. Considering the similarities across myths through cultures throughout the world, one should probably not mix the two. Orion was a caveman in Greek mythology, Osiris is written up as much more civilized. It would seem that the two are at odds with one another, and possibly from the point of view of evolution, two competing branches of what would eventually become Homo Sapiens defacto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.218.238 (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. I recently read an article that asserted this and decided to do some fact checking. I couldn't find any evidence at all to back it up.

190.129.70.253 (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they're referring to a contemporary association between Osiris and the group of stars that we'd nowadays refer to as the constellation of Orion. There's quite a few authors suggesting that the constellation was considered special to the ancient Egyptians. Of course, they wouldn't have called the constellation "Orion". ErkDemon (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Isis and Osiris, impregnation

I found accounts on the internet http://www.egyptiandreams.co.uk/keywords/osiris/horus%20the%20son%20of%20isis%20and%20osiris.php which contradict the version in here and make more sense. You see the problem is that Osiris' Penis got eaten by a fish so how could he have impregnated Isis? Well, she impregnated herself apparently using semen from his dead body. Sorry to put you guys off your tea. Given that this makes far more sense (bear in mind the Egyptians were mentalists)I've altered the version slightly.

No one pretends to monopolize what the Egyptians thought. There are at least three different Egyptian creation myths. Further, there's nothing preventing contradictions from occuring in a mythology (most evolving mythologies are rife with them). Add your version, but don't replace the old one. JustSomeKid 22:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Biblical Parallels

"It has been claimed that the Egyptian deity Osiris had almost the same life-story as Jesus, including his conception, birth, ministry, death and resurrection. Some historians claim that this is because the New Testament incorporated these beliefs in order to appeal to pagan converts. Other historians claim the stories are very dissimilar. Many Christians would also observe that Christianity emerged from Judaism and made its first appeal to Jews, and that incorporating Egyptian stories would probably have made the religion less attractive to its first converts."

Who has made this claim? I've read several expositions on how these and other stories are similar in paganism and christianity, but never seen the specific claim that it was an "intentional" choice to pick a theme palatable to pagans. Rather, the things I've read simply noted the similarity and speculated that one story was the inspiration for the other. I'd like to see some evidence that a serious researcher has made these claims, because it sounds to me like a straw man. --Dmerrill

Straw man. Yes. That's exactly what it is. I'm sure some baroque humanist suggested it (perhaps Athanasius Kircher?), but - like most of the Germanic 'etymology' and nomenclature on Wikipedia - it is a very long way from that to any modern scholar suggesting it. --MichaelTinkler

The only way I've ever seen it (in scholarly texts) is as one of many resurrection cults that existed in the Roman Empire at the time of the rise of Christianity. The other biggie is Mithraism. Never seen anything to suggest intent though. In fact, the only example of this I know of is in Gergory's letter to Augustine of Canterbury, where he says to bless the holy places of the pagans and turn them to places of Christian worship -- and even that is not worded that blatantly! JHK

Mithraism did predate Chirstianty, but the only sources regarding some kind of resurrection, come from second and third century Christians. Tertullian for one, and at least what I've gained from reading his writings, they seem to regard a resurrection at the end of time but I think I should recheck that. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to set up a straw man, but this article may not be the place for the above rebuttal. At the bottom of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ page, there are (at the moment) links to two external articles. The article at the religious tolerance website includes this paragraph (regarding the similarities between Christian and pagan resurrection stories):

To many liberal Christians, the question is worth studying. Many Pagan religious belief systems permeated the Mediterranean region in the 1st century CE. There were various male heroes within Egyptian, Greek, Roman and other Pagan pantheons of Gods, whose role was to be saviors to humanity -- much like Jesus. In order to compete with those religions, Christianity would have had to describe Jesus in terms that matched or surpassed the Pagan legends. The authors of the gospels may well have picked up themes from other sources and added them to their writings in order to make Christianity more credible to a Pagan world. By isolating and removing such foreign material, we might be able to get a clearer picture of what Jesus taught and how he lived.

So the claim is there that the stories were deliberately brought in to Christianity so it could "compete with those religions." I had a response simmering for a while and it came out here; perhaps it belongs on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ instead, since that's where the reference to the claim is. I'll let someone else decide whether the religious tolerance article is written by a "serious researcher" or not. --Wesley

---

I'm not sure that the proof presented here is particularly worthy of being in this article. As far as I can tell, those three similarities apply to Jesus Christ, Osiris and essentially every life-death-rebirth deity.

1. Both die and are resurrected
   1. Eternal life is a possibility in essentially every religion, most of which include some sort of reference to the possibility of life after death. This point does have some merit, since it applies to Jesus and Osiris and not particularly you or I.
2. Both are symbols of everlasting life
   1. This reiterates the same point as #1, essentially
3. Both are symbolically and literally the way to Heaven (Amenti).
   1. It would be pointless to have a heaven (as most religions do) without some method of getting there

One-half of a similarity does not seem worthy of the space it takes up. I'm posting this here in the hopes that someone will fix it. If nobody argues, I will delete it and just make a link to life-death-rebirth deity -- User:Tokerboy

--- Text taken out of the article by User:Tokerboy as described above.

The following similarities have been observed between the story of Osiris and that of Jesus Christ:

1. Both die and are resurrected
2. Both are symbols of everlasting life
3. Both are symbolically and literally the way to Heaven (Amenti).

The reason for the similarities (or whether there in fact even is a reason beyond sheer coincidence) has been speculated upon, but aside from the similarities themselves there is little information to go on. Tokerboy 16:49 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)

I think the striking similarities should at least be mentioned, The linked site name a number as high as 46 similarities in the lives and teachings of Horus and Jesus [[1]]. -- user:-ramz-

Similarities between Osiris and Christ: there is also 4) the bread and beer/wine - flesh and blood similarity. And 5) I have read elsewhere that Osiris's resurrection occured at the same time as Easter. Can anyone confirm this? I do not know why there is no mention of the similarity to the Christ story on the main page as it is quite noticeable.

Being someone who takes a great interest in Egyptian mythology, I came to the conclusion long ago that the "similarities" between Osiris and Jesus are highly, highly over-exageratted. People have said Osiris was born of a Virgin, Cruicified and resurrected, when the reality is the story tells that Osiris was born of the Sky and Earth; he was killed by being nailed into a box and thrown in a river and was brought back to life to have offspring. It's a very, very weak argument for the so-called "startling similiarity" with Jesus, hence the reason it has been disregarded for centuries by any serious thinker of theology and history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.45.222.60 (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the website linked to above is a blog which claims to have taken its info from religioustolerance.org, which, in turn, (says the blog), has references of its own. So, third-hand information at best. I don't know anything about this subject matter, but it really seems that more reliable references would be needed to claim any real link between Jesus and Osiris. - Special-T (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"# Both die and are resurrected

# Both are symbols of everlasting life

# Both are symbolically and literally the way to Heaven (Amenti)."

Wrong on two counts at least, I'm afraid.

#Osiris dies and is *reanimated*, not resurrected. He remains very much dead. To understand this you need to understand about Egyptian concepts like the first and second deaths; Osiris undergoes the first death, and is therefore not dead in the sense that we think of it.

# Osiris was a symbol of fertility and the afterlife, but not of everlastingness. Even the netjeru were destined to die, and at some point in the far future, the creator-god was going to sink all of creation into the Nun again. (cf: Coffin Texts, "what is a span of my life?").

# The West/Field of Reeds/Celestial barque are not heaven in the manner of Abrahamic afterlives; they very closely resemble this life.

I realise it's a bit odd to bring this up a year later, but I do think that the opening reference to Osiris as "one who died to save the many, who rose from the dead"; he died from being murdered by his brother, and if it was "for" anything, it was so that the order of kingship could be established by Horus. He also didn't rise from the dead, as I have highlighted. An awful lot of that is post-Christian interpolation, not "pagan" Egyptian belief. cf: Hornung's "Der Eine und Die Vielen". 87.113.146.46 (talk)Nefertum

"Legend" of Osiris and Isis

I have moved all text to the similar subsection here, where it would be looked for. No text has been deleted (or edited yet). For the reason why legend is not myth and doesn't apply to Isis and Osiris, see Legend.Wetman 17:30, 22 May 2004 (UTC) Some people poop on Osiris.

Disambiguation

Shouldn't this page link to a disambiguation and the current content be rerouted to Osiris (god)? --Colonel E 02:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Father of Anubis

"..her husband, Set, who was in fact homosexual"

• Anyone have any references for this 'fact'?

Markh 08:02, 2005 September 2 (UTC)

There's corroboration here. JustSomeKid

All the papyrus describes is a "homosexual attack" of Seth on Horus in the attempt to humiliate him through domination, which ultimately backfires (because Seth is tricked into eating salad spiked with Horus' sperm). It does not describe Seth as homosexual per se, but rather, at best, as bisexual. I'd like to see the bit about his male lover god. Got that papyrus handy?

Urhixidur 00:36, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Does this not show a different attitude to sexuality in the Ancient Egyptian culture, rather that the 'fact' that Seth was homosexual? It definately describes a homosexual act, does that prove the stated fact?

Now afterward, (at) evening time, bed was prepared for them, and they both lay down. But during the night, Seth caused his phallus to become stiff and inserted it between Horus's thighs. Then Horus placed his hands between his thighs and received Seth's semen. Horus went to tell his mother Isis: "Help me, Isis, my mother, come and see what Seth has done to me." [2]

Markh 08:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality as we think of it should not be conflated with the acts of Horus and Seth. Both were still married to women, and had children. While it wasn't frowned upon, marriage was still between a man and a woman and was the legal form; we should not imagine that homosexual partnerships were considered in any way of the same status as heterosexual partnerships. Similarly, we should avoid the connotations of modern concepts like "gay". cf: imyt-pr documents, and some of the surrounding literature. As with most ancient societies, though, who was wearing the trousers in the relationship was important, however - and the word "xm" seems to be a derogatory term derived from the masculine form of "xmt",which means "wife"... :) 87.113.146.46 (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Nefertum

Entry Story Style

After first reading, it seems that this significant entry suffers under its own weight. There are three aspects of the entry that I can think of off the top of my head: a) the factual procession of Egyptian beliefs, and historical events that go along with that, ie the Science b) the poetic/numinous qualities of the stories c) the format of a single page telling all of these

How to solve this well is a question that reflects on all of Wikipedia. Personally I came to this page today to read (b). There may be no 'solution', just creative tensions. What I do request is that amidst the Science, there are uninterrupted sections of story.

Osiris's Name

The article states "The majority of current thinking is that the Egyptian name is pronounced aser where the a is the letter ayin (i.e. a short 'a' pronounced from the back of the throat as if swallowing)."

I would like some sources on that please. The name is transliterated as wsjr, that's as much as any of my sources state, and I believe that's as much as the article should state. However I'd be very interested to find out the logic behind that theory, and maybe give it a benefit of the doubt - but in any case the article should say, so-and-so believes that it is thus; I certainly see absolutely no support for it to be accepted by a majority.Flyboy Will 09:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought that the name of the brightest star in the sky, Sirius (near Orion), is a Latinised form of Osiris?... Fig 13:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

87.113.146.46 (talk)Sirius comes from the Greek "Sothis", which may come from "Sopdet" in Egyptian. This may be what you're thinking of. There is no connexion between Osiris and Sirius/Orion that I'm aware of. 87.113.146.46 (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Nefertum

166.70.243.229's additions

I have some disquiet over 166.70.243.229's additions. Many of them look partly reliable but together they look like someone constructing a theory or presenting a POV by selectively referring to sources. It looks too clean - "just so" - rather than it was x and sometimes y but othertimes it was z. --Victim of signature fascism 01:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've now rectified much of this. --Victim of signature fascism 01:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

God of the dead, not God of death

I think it should be noted that the phrases "God of the dead" and "God of death" are so vastly different that it gives one pause to wonder how or why one would confuse the two. Osiris was also referred to as "king of the living" as was Horus. If people deny that Osiris was a savior and venerated as judge of the dead, I can see where ignoring this would be a temptation for many, but it can only go so far without becoming a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of God of the dead/afterlife/eternity.

Osiris can be compared to the Hindi creation myth with the tree of wisdom, which in itself is comparable to the tree of life / tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Abraimic texts. Osiris would be a rollup of the two trees in Abraimic texts; ie. one can eat of the "forbidden fruit" (which is curiously undefined in all texts) and still attain everlasting life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.218.238 (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For our edification, here is an entry from the 2003 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, borrowed from sources on the internet. It makes it clear what I mean here, and some of these points must be included in our initial introduction, which should tell a complete idea of who he was, not the details.

By about 2400 BC, however, Osiris clearly played a double role: he was both a god of fertility and the embodiment of the dead and resurrected king. This dual role was in turn combined with the Egyptian concept of divine kingship: the king at death became Osiris, god of the underworld and the dead king's son, the living king, was identified with Horus, a god of the sky. Osiris and Horus were thus father and son. The goddess Isis was the mother of the king and was thus the mother of Horus and consort of Osiris....

Osiris was not only ruler of the dead but also the power that granted all life from the underworld, from sprouting vegetation to the annual flood of the Nile River. From about 2000BC onward it was believed that every man, not just the deceased kings, became associated with Osiris at death....

This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the nextworld and through one's descendants on Earth.

We are talking about a very powerful concept of death and rebirth in the evolution of civilization, which is key to understanding how religion evolved from here. 166.70.243.229 19:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Could we not remove the "God of..." concept from articles on Egyptian gods altogether? It's a Greco-Roman concept quite alien ot Egypt, vastly over-simplifies the conceptions of these deities in Egypt, and is actually rather misleading. It would be better to say that Osiris took on the role of Lord of the Duat, and that he was often associated with life, death and fertility. cf: Hornung's "Der Eine und Die Vielen" 87.113.146.46 (talk)Nefertum

Sep or Centipede

On a separate issue, it has been requested before, and I'll reiterate that request: What is the source or sources for conflating Osiris with Centipede or Sep? This seems quite unconventional, and is not identified as such anywhere else that I have found, even on places that list his other forms. 166.70.243.229 20:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting patiently for this explanation. I think it should be taken down if the author cannot make their case. Either way, it looks like their own guess, even the symbol, and doesn't need to confuse a basic encyclopedia entry on Osiris because he had many more forms than this. 166.70.243.229 19:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Osiris in popular culture

I didn't think that the lenghty description of the band, Osiris, belonged in the pop culture section, so I created a band page and moved the bio over to it. It probably needs cleaned up a bit to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Is it a good idea to have a list, in theory inexhaustible, of popular references to Osiris, having little or nothing to do with the Osiris of the article? ie a popularMyspace member is called Osiris, erm, the bass player of Random Rock Band was occasionally known as Osiris, a horse which won a race one time was called O..... etc.Hakluyt bean 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

o.k, take your point, if there is no obvious and direct link to the ancient Egyptian God, the subject of the article, then it should go. I will begin today and if anybody wants to revert then please discuss on this talk page first.GoldenMeadows 07:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

As currently written, the article seems to contradict itself in regards to the meaning and origin of the name Osiris; particularly the statement that "The origin of Osiris's name is a mystery, which forms an obstacle to knowing the pronunciation of its hieroglyphic form". Lucky number 49 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A contradition would be to state that we know how to pronounce the name, and also that we don't have any idea how to. I see no contradition in a simple statement of lack of certain knowledge. Thus, I've removed the tag. Please try to explain yourself better. SBHarris 18:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Osirian sacrament

Can anyone justify this section including the supposed beliefs of the Nilitic peoples re: cannibalism and also the idea that there was anything like an Osirian sacrement?Apepch7 15:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The section has no references aside from a translation of the Unas version of the Pyramid Texts. The texts themselves are highly ambiguous, scholars have been debating their meaning for generations, in particular the "cannibalistic" passages. So far as I am aware, there is no tradition of cannibalism among the Nilotic peoples. Unless the section is provided with extensive documentation in the near future, I intend to delete it as it is unsupported, poorly written, and highly speculative.Shoveling Ferret (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally, the Egyptians seem to have abhorred the concept of cannibalism, and of treating humans as you might animals (cf: Djedi's comment to Khufu in P. Westcar, "Not from the sacred herd!"); the kings of the First Dynasty buried some of their subject alive with them, but since this took them to the afterlife as well, it was probably rationalised as not killing them but transferring them to somewhere else. It fell out of use after the death of the last king of Dynasty 1 (Qa'a? I forget). The Pyramid Text extracts referring to cannibalism really ought to be read in the context of ingesting the power and attributes of those who are eaten, IMO, but as stated, these texts are cryptic and often ambiguous and, frankly, weird.

Osiris' temples probably operated like most other Egyptian temples - i.e., statue cults and offerings of "everything good and pure". Egyptian religion was neither congregational nor catechetical (again, cf: Hornung). 87.113.146.46 (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Nefertum

The real story of Isis & Osiris

Besides the tomb underneath the Sphinx.

Skip that for a moment, there is so much archeological evidence about Isis & Osiris throughout all of Egypt. But the story of Zeti I & the book of the dead are not valid, I am convinced every hieroglyph from the tomb of Osiris underneath the Sphinx are describing the real story. People just have to figure out the real story of Isis & Osiris for themselves, it's so easy to find. You don't have to go all the way into Osiris's tomb to learn more about him, above the ground is so much archeological evidence.

You just have to know where to look and where not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phalanxpursos (talk • contribs) 00:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Crock o'shite. 87.113.146.46 (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Nefertum

Deletion of Osiris in popular culture section

I noticed a recent edit while watching recent changes in Egyptology edits and decided to find out what should go in such sections, following the discussion above. WP:POPCULTURE says 'in a nutshell' "In popular culture" sections should be carefully maintained and contain sourced examples demonstrating a subject's cultural significance." In more detail, it says "Some degree of selectivity should always be used when adding items, and passing references to the article subject are usually not good examples. "In popular culture" lists should contain verifiable facts of genuine interest to a broad audience of readers.

Although some information can be verified from primary sources, this does not demonstrate whether such information has been discussed in independent secondary sources. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a secondary reliable source to attribute that judgment. Quoting a respected expert as attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged."

The current section simply didn't get anywhere near meeting the guidelines, so I've removed it. I've nothing against a decent section with references to independent secondary sources, and if someone wants to start one, go ahead. Doug Weller (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an essay, not guidelines, but I think gives good guidance and should be followed if it is restored. Doug Weller (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

'== Osiris' Resurrection ==

There is no mention that Osiris didn't actually raise from the dead but remained burried and ruled in the abode of the dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpve (talk • contribs) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. He was a dead god, not a living/resurrected one. 87.113.146.46 (talk)Nefertum

His role as ruler of the dead doesn't excluded him from union with Re as supreme deity. In this aspect he is especially associated with the circumpolar stars, the constellation of Orion and the star Sirius. During the Ramessid era he is shown in composite form united with Re. See J. G Griffiths article in "The Oxford Guide to Egyptian Mythology". It would take too long here to set out why I think some modern egyptologists use "resurrection" in descriptions of Osiris, will try and add to article later. Taam (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just added this[3] to the talk page of Resurrection as it relates to one of the uses of the word when applied to Osiris as corn-deity. Taam (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Osiris ressurected only to the extent that he was able to conceive Horus by Isis (after death). His nightly union with Ra is the main theme of the New Kingdom underworld books (e.g. Am Dwat). In effect they are twin souls, in other words Ra needs Osiris and Osiris needs Ra - and Osiris was seen as Ra's body sometimes. The outcome of this union was a renewed sun, that is the sun is regenerated so that it can rise again after passing through the underworld. This is possible because of Osiris' link with the waters of Nun ('the efflux from Osiris') - so Osiris is seen as a source of fertility like the Nile (and the inundation). Apepch7 (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He was "god of the Dead" and not "a dead god" (the latter is from a Christian era - see Budge p. 81 "Egyptian Ideas of the Afterlife"). An Osirian dimension of immortality was corporeal, the hope for continued life in body and not restricted to a glorified spirit.(Griffiths p. 66, p. 17, "The origins of Osiris and his cult”). Unlike the gloomy Greek and Babylonian Hades or the few scattered references to the afterlife in Hebrew scriptures, life with Osiris is a place of bliss. (”Reflections of Osiris”, John Ray, p. 11) In the Pyramid Texts the King is repeatedly related to Osiris and Re, symbolising two perceptions of eternal life: the Chothonic (Osiris), representing the linear through resurrection, and the solar (Re) representing daily cyclical rebirth. In the afterlife the King becomes one with Re and Osiris.(”Religion in ancient Egypt”, p. 72, Leonard H. Lesko). In the Book of Going Forth by Day the person entering into the Kingdom of Osiris is depicted as eating, drinking, enjoying sexual union in a beautiful rural environment where fields are cultivated similar to this world but with animated Shawabti figures doing the work.(”Gods and Men in Egypt” Françoise Dunand, Christiane Zivie-Coche, David Lorton, p. 188)

The example I give above, Osiris as a grain God, is one of the reasons Osiris is considered to undergo resurrection by some egyptologists. In one aspect Osiris is the grain who dies and is buried in the ground and he rises again as the sprouting vegetation, and this is not meant metaphorically. (see "The Routledge dictionary of Egyptian gods and goddesses", p. 119 George Hart) Interestingly Jesus uses the same imagery as the dying-rising grain god when he is reported to prophesy his own death and resurrection.

T.G Griffiths (see ref above) thought that conceptions of the afterlife involving resurrection are better described outside the Osirian afterlife but acknowledges it's also commonly encountered here. He draws parallels with the Christian text “Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee”.(Ephesians 5:14)(Griffiths p. 67 "The origins of Osiris and his cult" and p. 246 "The divine verdict" quote 'and alongside stellar immortality they stressed the resurrection of the body")

So rejecting, implicitly, a narrow definition that must conform exclusively to a form of Christian orthodoxy some egyptologists use resurrection without qualification (see Hart above) and without reference to any supposed Christian limitation on the use of the word. Taam (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh crap, look what we have here, a source. Scrolling up I see an article from Encylopedia Britannica 2003 saying "This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the next world and through one's descendants on Earth." 69.254.76.77 (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have at least three sources (The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt by Richard H. Wilkinson, Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt by John Taylor, and Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt by Rosalie David) which use the term to describe what happened to Osiris after he died, or what the Egyptians believed would happen to them after death. I can understand your complaint on this point, as it is not resurrection in the most literal, physical sense, but because there is a shortage of more precise terms, "resurrection" is very often used to describe it. Clearly, the article should explain the difference when describing the event in detail, but referring to the event in passing as "resurrection" seems perfectly legitimate to me. "Passion" is more suspect; because the modern meaning of "passion" has almost completely driven out the older sense of "suffering", this sense of the word is nearly always associated with the suffering of Jesus. I may have seen the term applied to Osiris outside this article, but I can't remember where, so I think that changing the word to something else would be reasonable. A. Parrot (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In this particular instance I'm not sure of the wisdom of even replying to this, I already deleted the soapboxing of the i.p user in question earlier this week - see also edits to my own talk and the anon i.p users talk page this evening. The i.p editor has been including "crap" like epithets in edit summaries, deleting cited material and using the article talk page as soapbox to promote his/her own ideas. Now in the latest post below there is the threat of violence being made. This I will leave to others. Regarding the points you raise about the "passion", suggest doing a google book search and you will see several well known Egyptologists using the term. As regards the Osirian afterlife I agree there should be an expanded treatment of all the main opinions. The lengthy quotation added recently by our angry i.p editor is broadly correct for one mode of existence but it misleads imo re the complementary dimensions of the the afterlife that the Egyptians believed they could take part in. Taam (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. If you want one word to describe what happened with one word, then I guess resurrection is the best word (ascended to the underworld?) but it's the way it's being used is what I have a problem with. Tamm seems to have a problem with this and single-handidly seems to have written that entire section though I'm too lazy to check but the last three added blocks were done by them. Also, who ever added that pictures, trying to compare Isis with the picture of Mary, both holding babies needs to be punched in the face for trying to pull something like that. First, it's insinuating that the art was copied (looks medevil?) from an ancient egyptian artifact (like they had access to one), and secondly HOW ELSE are you going to portray a mother holding a baby? That runs on the "Son of God? SUN of God?" logic. It's going to look like I'm storming out of here angry, and that's half correct. Someone who isn't tired of dealing with can take the reins if they want to. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)out.

Picture of Isis and Mary

As it stands, this conjunction appears to be original research and I think should be removed unless we can find a good source linking these specific images. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The image was copied over from the Isis page where it has been for a long time, that being said if this particular conjunction of images is the work of wiki editor then it would be original research if nothing else supported it. As it happens there is an article written by scholars on the BBC web site[4] that does put two images facing one another. One appaears to be a drawing of Isis-Horus statue as used in this article and the other is by Fra Filippo Lippi [5] which we have on wikipedia. So if no objections I will place these two images along with the text from Oxford guide that provides a scholarly citation along with the BBC article text (there are many more)Taam (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Osirian Mythology to Christianity.

For religious safety, as well as respect, I recommend that we removed the topics regarding arguements between the relation the Osirian Mythology to the Christian Theology. This topics must be moved elsewhere (such as a discussion page) to avoid any radical/extremist feedback. The tone of these topics is already like an instistance of belief. This is a page for Egyptian Mythology and Religion! It will also gives respect to the both Christianity and Kemetism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.187.227 (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The sharing of traditions and practices amongst different faiths, repeats itself throughout history, and happens to almost every cultural institution as one system becomes eclipsed by another. The theory that compares Osirian Mythology to Christianity is not disrespectful, instead it presents an opinion made by relevant scholars which reflects this historical theme. I think the article is very clear in accrediting such comparisons to their respective authors, and does not disrespect the opinions of modern religious institutions. SADADS (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Osiris' Penis

Is there disagreement among sources about what happened to Osiris' penis? Myth of Osiris and Isis says that Set ate it, but this article says that it was eaten by a fish. Petronivs (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Weight and Verifiability Tags

This is supposed to be a page about Osiris, not about the possible connection between Egyptian religion and Christianity advocated by a minority of scholars. (There's already a page on that: Christ myth theory) While such a possible connection may be mentioned in this article, it currently occupies an undue amount of space on the page. Further, slapping "Christian" on the front of "scholar" when the scholar happens to be Christian is a subtle violation of NPOV. Either the person in question is a scholar (and thus their religious orientation shouldn't be mentioned) or they're not (and they shouldn't be mentioned at all).

Also the Osiris-Dionysus section is totally unsupported. It either needs sources or removal. And just so someone doesn't waste his time, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy do not qualify as reliable source for this Wikipedia article. Eugene (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In your zeal to evangelize you have successfully turned the Christ Myth theory (something I don't support) article into a page, when I last looked, that lends support to its promoters by outrageous comparisons to holocaust denial etc and its quite possible you wish to do the same with this page. The only reason the status of the sources is given in this article is that some Christians think that anybody who writes of such comparisons is inherently anti-christian, but that is not the case. The present content only came about because another i.p editor took objection, like you do, to such comparisons and I chose overtly Christian sources to satisfy the person that not all Christians (including early Church Fathers) believe God was separated completely from mankind before the Judeo-Christian take on spirituality, i.e they don't live in a black and white world in which everything outside of the bible is of the devil. However if you wish I can expand on the comparisons made by other Egyptologists who are not motivated by these doctrinaire considerations. Taam (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about not leaving my signature last time, my mistake. Speculations concerning my motives on the Christ myth theory page aside, the section on this page comparing Osiris to Jesus is WP:UNDUE. Regardless of who makes the comparisons (Christians or non-Christians) they are in a deceided minority and shouldn't be given as much space on this page as they have been. Also, identifying scholars by religious orientation remains subtly POV even if done for the reasons you mention. (Imagine identifying people on the antisemitism page as "Jewish scholar so-and-so".) Go ahead and include an FAQ on this talk page if you like that addresses this point, but cut the religious IDs from the article itself. Eugene (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the removal of who says what for the reasons given above and also possibly motivated by my experience of trying to contribute to the article on the Roman Catholic Church that imo was/is a model of how to abuse scholarship by the choice of partisan sources that cannot be expected to give opinions that oppose their dogmatic faith perspective. As for undue weight - the solution is to balance it with opposing opinion, preferably from sound sources grounded in Egyptology and knowledgeable in Judeo-Christian theology. Taam (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I've seen these sentiments before. The fact of the matter is that a Osiris-Jesus connection is not seriously contemplated by mainstream scolarship. Including paragraph after paragraph on his matter therefore violates WP:UNDUE and is unencyclopedic; the section should therefore be substantially reduced. Eugene (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I cannot agree with your assertion about "mainstream scholarship". Erik Hornung and Donald B. Redford's (editor) Oxford reference works are not fringe sources and there are many that can be added especially relating to the wife of Osiris and their child. By way of example (a book I am part way through) Jaroslav Černý writes:

"The dead Osiris, however, was deified and a personal creed was attached to his life and death, which was very much like that of Christianity based on the suffering and death of Jesus.("Ancient Egyptian Religion", p. 84)

The technique you used in the Christ Myth article, i.e portraying people who don't agree with you as crazed isn't going to work with these sources. Taam (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The most recent book (2005) by an academic publisher (Blackwell) about Osiris that I have is by the Egyptologist Bojana Mojsov who writes:

Did Christianity take from the Osiris myth the doctrines of resurrection, the immortality of the soul, and the sacrament of the eucharist? It is more certain that much of its symbolism was used in popular art......Egyptian symbols were simply adapted to the new faith...Christ, too, was the divine emanation that issued from the Father, the Word, and the Way. His human incarnation, his redemption of the world through suffering, were all familiar. "Thus, Christianity did not burst upon Egypt as a clap of thunder, but stole into ears already prepared" Forster wrote. ("Osiris: Death and Afterlife of a God", p. 116)

There isn't a Wikipedia article on this particular author but the publisher states on the back of the book:

Bojana Mojsov was born in Skopje, Macedonia. She is a celebrated Egyptologist and has worked in the Egyptology Departments of the Metropolitan and Brooklyn Museums in New York. She has also acted as an advisor to the American Research Centre in Cairo on restoring the tomb of Seti I in the Valley of the Kings, and as an advisor on the new collections at the National Museum in Khartoum , Sudan.

I have also reverted your undiscussed deletion of images as I'm not convinced by the reasons given in your edit summary. It's not uncommon in works about Osiris to see such references to the family bonds involved, indeed the above ref deals with this issue -including the Christian parallels. Taam (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, Taam. This is an article on Osiris, not Horus. Osiris doesn't appear in either of the pictures I removed. Further, I didn't just delete the pictures, I moved them to the Horus page where they belong. If you really intend to resist my efforts to remove the WP:UNDUE material from this article, I suggest you don't squander your credibility by engaging in an edit war over obviously inappropriate content. Eugene (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. In your case I accept that you write in ignorance, i.e you are unaware of the bindings between Osiris, his wife and son, especially wrt to salvation and the afterlife and rather than argue with your deletions: "Let it Be". regards Taam (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Crook and flail

Surely the flail is to do with arable farming and not shepherding - see section on connections to Ram Apepch7 (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Martin A. Larson

According to Martin A. Larson's page here, he only has a degree in English Literature so I'm not sure why he's being quoted in regards to mythology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.181.46 (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A person's competence to write on a topic is not determined by whether s/he has a degree in it. Larson may or may not be worthy of citation here (my guess is not, for what it's worth), but I don't think we can determine whether he is purely on the basis of what he has degrees in. Incidentally, his PhD thesis (notionally in English literature) actually seems to have been about Milton's theology, so the gulf between his formal qualifications and his subsequent work isn't quite so wide as it looks. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

74 persons conspired against the KIng Osiris

"The best exoteric account of the legend (of Osiris) is preserved for us by Plutarch in his treatise De Iside et Osiride written in Greek about the middle of the first century of our era, a large portion of which is substantiated by the Egyptian hieroglyphic texts which have been deciphered by scholars. It may be briefly summarized as follows:

Osiris was a wise king in Egypt who set himself to civilize the people and redeem them from their former states of barbarism. He taught them the cultivation of the earth, gave them a body of laws, and instructed them in the worship of the gods. Having made his own land prosperous, he set out in like manner to teach the other nations of the world. During his absence, the land of Egypt was so well ruled by his wife Isis, that his jealous brother Typhon (Set), the personification of evil, as Osiris was the personification of good, could do no harm in his kingdom; but on the return of Osiris to Egypt, Typhon made a conspiracy against him, persuading 72 other persons to join him, together with a certain Queen of Ethiopia named Aso, who chanced to be in Egypt at the time (74 altogether)... Ultimately Osiris became the king of the underworld and the judge of the dead."

- p. 35-36, Freemasonry and its Ancient Mystic Rites by C. W. Leadbeater, Gramercy, 1998 - Brad Watson, Miami, FL 64.136.26.22 (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you inserted a reference to this book, are you suggesting the above quote as part of the article? Would it not be better just to quote Plutarch and reference his work?Apepch7 (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Was or Is?

Perhaps I'm making a mountain out of a mole-hill, but why does the article say "was an Egyptian god"? I would just change it to "is", since Osiris was never "replaced", but I've seen things on Wikipedia go crazy over little changes, especially when dealing with things like religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoth16 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The past tense is more appropriate, because he was widely worshipped in the past, but is no longer believed in today. There is no known active temple or cult of Osiris anywhere on Earth today; this is a discarded belief system that was discarded at least 1,500 years ago, not a current belief. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is Kemetic Orthodoxy, if it counts. I'm not sure what the tense should be, either. There are no featured articles on gods from dead religions, but there are several Good Articles: one Roman god and a bunch of Norse. The Norse articles use the present tense, under the convention that fictional subjects (the fiction here being Norse mythology) be referred to in the present tense. On the other hand, the Roman god Terminus is a "was". A. Parrot (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, 'Kemetic Orthodoxy' looks to be so tiny and new I'd never heard of them before, but thanks for that fascinating link. Surely they can't number more than a few hundred adherents at the most, since it seems they have to pay dues, sign consent forms, and acknowledge their founder as their Pharaoh, etc. to be considered her members...! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth I think it is also a grammatical issue. Osiris has not stopped being a god and therefore is a god ... without speculating on the nature of divinity (!!!) ... no doubt I have used past tense without thinking about it as well. Not sure it matters that much except for reading consistency - at least in any one article it should be the same. Apepch7 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why I asked. He never stopped being a god, in the sense of the word. Also, I am a Kemetic reconstructionist (not Kemetic Orthodox), so naturally the us of the word "was" tends to go noticed.Thoth16 (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So then, you believe Osiris is an actual god today? I see, but just remember that would be a 'point-of-view' (pov), that is not currently shared by very many... Perhaps it should say more specifically that Osiris was a deity in the religion of Ancient Egypt. His cult was once widespread in the region, but this is no longer the case for the past 14 or so centuries. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether anyone believes Osiris exists in any sense is irrelevant. I could equally say the Christian god does not exist and say Jehovah 'was' the God of the Hebrews and so on. But I don't think this is going anywhere - so maybe we just agree a convention?Apepch7 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Our policy actually does discern between something a larger number of people today believe in, and something a very few or a handful (fringe) believe, so that is relevant... If it could be shown that any significant number of adherents in any country or region today believe Osiris is a real god, we ought to mention that somewhere in the article first of all. Per policy you have to demonstrate that a POV is significant or widespread first before you can accommodate it, and on that score I'm afraid Osiris-belief and the major world religions are not on an equal footing... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to keep this discussion from turning into an argument over the size (or worse, validity) of religions. According to WP:TENSE, fictional subjects take the present tense. Looking at the featured article on Greek mythology, events in mythology at least sometimes take the present tense in the same manner as a work of fiction. (I want to emphasize here that by calling mythology "fictional" I am not taking a position on its veracity but only pointing out that, like fully fictional works, myths are stories that "come alive" every time one reads them.) I believe that at least solves the problem of the lead sentence; if Osiris exists, he "is", and if he does not, he is fictional, and therefore he "is".

The distinction of what should use present or past tense is tricky, though, and I'm not sure how to apply it throughout the article. The Greek mythology article appears to apply it inconsistently. That may be because of uninformed or careless editing. It could also be because in Greek mythology the distinction between mythology and "fictional history" (which WP:TENSE says should take the past tense) is almost invisible. There might be some cases where events in Osiris' mythology would count as "fictional history", but I think not. Egyptian mythology, I believe, is more fluid, less literal, and less like fictional history than the mythology of Greece. Of course, when speaking of the actions of ancient Egyptians in worshipping Osiris, the article should use the past tense, but material about his mythology should be present tense—I think. A. Parrot (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tomb of Osiris

In later Egyptian history wasn't a first dynasty pharaohs tomb identified as that of Osiris. The late professor Emery mentions this in one of his articles. Does anybody else have any further information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AT Kunene (talk • contribs) 10:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Tomb of Osiris

In later Egyptian history wasn't a first dynasty pharaohs tomb identified as that of Osiris. The late professor Emery mentions this in one of his articles. Does anybody else have any further information?AT Kunene (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes; the tomb of Djer at Abydos was believed to have been Osiris' tomb, beginning in the Middle Kingdom. With the increasing popularity of Osiris in that period, the tomb became a site of pilgrimage and offerings from people all over Egypt. A. Parrot (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Osireion

Why do you not mention Osireion ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osireion