The motivation for the murder of his brother Osiris by Seth is normally considered to be one of jealousy of his kingship and a way of taking over the throne. However, there is an alternative reason. In ‘Seth ist im Recht, Osiris ist im Unrecht’ von Lieven proposes a paradigm on local Seth worship and the Seth worshipers’ version of the Osiris myth. The title of the article can be construed in the legal sense as Seth is in the right, Osiris is in the wrong.
This immediately sets the tone that unlike the usual Egyptian religious texts, Osiris is presented as the villain and perpetrator of a misdemeanour rather than the usual suspect, Seth.
Von Lieven presents her proposal in two parts. The first of these is the proposal that despite the vilification of Seth during the Late and Ptolemaic Periods, he continued to be worshiped throughout the Nile valley in the form of small local cults. In support of this, she cites reliefs within the Ptolemaic temple of Hathor at Dendara where in the Osiris chapel Seth is depicted as an ass bound and mistreated. However, on a door reveal in room E there are four fully
anthropomorphic figures labelled as Seth from the Oases, Seth from the trees, Seth Unu or unes and Seth of Sepermeru receiving offerings from an un-named Ptolemaic pharaoh.
However, as in the inscriptions employed in the Western Desert Oases, the Seth animal is not depicted instead the name is written in phonetic hieroglyphs with a god determinative (von Lieven 2006, 141-142).
The second part of the proposal is that at the locations of Seth worship there would have been employed a version of a mythology that emphasized the more positive aspects of Seth. This positive view of Seth would have included a different interpretation of the most aggressive of Seth’s acts, the murder of Osiris. Von Lieven proposes that the attack on Osiris was in fact prompted by Osiris’ act of adultery with Seth’s wife, Nephthys. In the PT Spell P327 Seth
claims that Osiris attacked him first (Faulkner 1968, 164: Allen 2005, 129). This attack could be construed as an attack on Seth’s honour rather than a physical one. Seth’s later statement that Osiris kicked him first can also be presented as the action of Osiris when
confronted by Seth’s accusations resulting in Seth killing him in self-defence.
However, as the cuckolded husband and with the Egyptian’s attitude that adultery was a capital crime, Seth would have had the legal right to punish Osiris up to the point of death (von Lieven
2006, 145-146). The violation of his brother’s marriage by the act of adultery with Nephthys, and the deception of his own wife Isis, casts a more dubious light onto the model of
integrity that Osiris endeavoured to project (von Lieven 2006, 146-148). This revision in the interpretation of the Osiris myth would present Seth as the wronged husband extracting his legally sanctioned revenge, while Osiris would be seen as a deceitful adulterer who receives the justice he deserves.
