Herodotus, following the statements of the priests, gives a series of Egyptian gods, and Osiris is to be found here among the later ones. But the further development of the religious consciousness takes place also within a religion itself, and we have already seen in the Indian religion that the worship of Vishnu and Siva is of later date. In the sacred books of the Parsis Mithras is put among the other Amshadspans, and stands on the same level with them; but Herodotus already gives prominence to Mithras, and at the time of the Romans, when all religions were brought to Rome, the worship of Mithras was one of the principal religions, while the service of Ormazd had not anything like the same importance.
Among the Egyptians, too, in the same manner Osiris is said to be a deity of later date. It is well known that in the time of the Romans, Serapis, a special form of Osiris, was the principal deity of the Egyptians, and yet, although it was in later times that the idea of him dawned upon the human mind, he is none the less the deity in whom the totality of consciousness disclosed itself.
The antithesis contained in the Egyptian view accordingly next loses its profound meaning and becomes a superficial one. Typhon is physical evil and Osiris the vitalising principle; to the former belongs the barren desert, and he is conceived as the burning wind, the scorching heat of the sun. Another antithesis is the natural one of Osiris and Isis, the sun and the earth, which is regarded as the principle of procreation generally. Thus Osiris too dies, is vanquished by Typhon, and Isis seeks everywhere for his bones: the god dies, here again is this negation. The bones of Osiris are then buried; he himself, however, has now become ruler of the kingdom of the dead. Here we have the course of living nature, a necessary cycle returning into itself. The same cycle belongs also to the nature of Spirit, and the fate of Osiris exhibits the expression of it. Here again the one signifies the other.
