A truly comprehensive theology of Horus of Edfu needs a mechanism to make all phenomena connected to the Gods, while allowing them independence, and retaining some connection with Horus and each other. The Gods and reality (latent or patent) further need a common ground of being which is also an objective standard of truth and conduct. Egyptian theology satisfies both of these requirements with Ma'at, represented by an ostrich feather or a Goddess wearing the same, as both the underlying moral principle (1)(2)(3) and the divinely ordained order of the universe (4). Ma'at is called the daughter of the creator God, be it Horus (5) or Amun-Ra (6); her pervasiveness and necessity are often expressed described in terms of food, drink, perfume and air upon which the Gods sustain themselves (7)(8). These seem to be poetic descriptions of Ma’at as the ground of being, of truth and reality itself. It comes from the creator God, as a necessary precondition for the rest of the universe.
The importance of Ma'at in Edfu is further emphasized by its identification with the Goddess Hathor, the consort of Horus. She was often identified explicitly with Ma'at in the Edfu temple inscriptions (9), as well as in her own contemporary temple at Dendera (10). Hathor's name means 'the house of Horus', and her hieroglyph is in fact the Horus falcon within the square hieroglyph for 'house'. She is identified with the sky which the sun inhabits, and sometimes as his mother in that context, furthering the symbolism of a field on which makes the activity of Gods possible (a possible similarity for Christians is Mary as the “throne of Christ”). Horus, the Gods, and creation existing together on Ma'at, created by Horus, allows them to remain integrated, without sharing an exact identity with Horus, their ruler and creator.
Ma'at finds a possible empirical parallel in physics and cosmology: Victor Stenger points out that Noether's Theorems and the phenomena of point of view invariance (the fact that 'the models of physics cannot depend on one point of view of the observer') (11) necessarily give rise to the laws of symmetry, which in turn give rise to the laws of conservation. While he believed this obviates the need for a divine lawgiver, the 'comprehensible cosmos' condition he described fits Ma'at (and likely the logos) as rational order itself. Indeed, the philosopher Ryan Michael Miller finds some parallels between Noether's First Theorem and Aristotelian cosmology (12).
Rather than a top-down design or underlying essence, it may be better to see Ma’at as a framework of comprehensibility that sets the conditions for natural laws, from which the phenomena of the universe naturally proceed as emergent properties. Horus creates the Gods, heaven, earth and all life, but the Egyptians did not give many details, and Ma’at need not be incompatible with our modern understandings of physics and evolutionary biology.
This same ontological foundation of Ma'at functions as the root of Egyptian ethics as well. Although the Egyptians did not seem to deduce a meta-ethic from their maxims and laws we have evidence for, there is a converging theme found in the commonalities among Negative Confessions in the Book of the Dead, temple admonitions to priests, tomb biographies, and the wisdom literature spanning from the Old Kingdom onward. The emphasis in these documents, per Miriam Lichtheim's survey, centers around truthfulness: prohibitions on theft (13), libel (14), greed (15)(16), deceit (17)(18), perjury (19), and fraud (20) abound. If Ma'at is truth itself, it makes sense that ethics would concern itself first with adherence to truth through honesty and integrity. But there were also warnings against losing one's temper (21)(22), provocation (23), ridiculing the less fortunate (24), physically harming others (25)(26), and being covetous of the wealth of another (27).
The theme in these cases seems to be one of proper ordered boundaries in one's temperament, and between themselves and the bodies and possessions of another. In addition to these basic rights, people should not judge someone, ally with or favor another, based on their power or wealth (28). At the same time, one should not side with someone against another just because the former are of a lesser station (29), nor should anyone be envious of another person's money (30). What emerges is an ethic commensurate with classical liberal Western thought: treating people equally in terms of opportunity and before the law but acknowledging differences of outcome will persist. This is in line with a universe of multiplicity producing complex outcomes, further tying the principle of Ma'at to the diversity of the pantheon, and the phenomenon they represent.
Edfu texts for priests provide a possible meta-ethic for the above: they specifically say that all people came from the eye of Horus, and hence Horus would be saddened having to punish any injustice against them, such as violence, rape, greed, cheating, or accepting bribes (31). This is a direct justification of morality based in humanity's shared nature as coming from Horus, aligned with imagio dei justifications for human rights in Christendom, or the Stoic concept of humans deriving equal worth from bearing the logos. The idea of men coming from the Eye of Horus was also evident on a few public-facing hymns of the temple (32), making this spiritual ontology of humanity a matter of public record, Concurrently, charity was also emphasized, with the phrases like 'I gave bread to the hungry' and 'clothes to the naked' as a common attestation in tombs throughout Egypt's history (33) and in the Book of Breathings, the Ptolemaic-era funerary text contemporary with Edfu (34). Piety is also important in upholding Ma'at (35), commensurate with the Egyptian mindset of the interplay between theology, ontology and ethics.
Since many actions associated with Ma'at include speech, we can draw a parallel to Jordan Peterson's idea of “truthful speech” that participates in the work of divine creation as a guiding ethic (36). Insomuch as all people partake of Ma'at and contribute to it through their speech, they can be said to be moral agents. However, animals too partake of Ma'at by perception and their own limited cognition, but without complex speech and culture are restricted in its creation; therefore they can be still said to be moral subjects. Certainly the Egyptians would see animals as important in their worldview, whether as symbols, food, labor or pets. Ma'at in this sense can give humans the prime place within our ethical system while still acknowledging humaneness to other creatures. A hymn on the southern temenos gate of Edfu reinforces this, saying that Horus gives life and well-being to plants and animals as well as Gods and men (37).
The Gods' incorporation with Ma'at should ensure that any conflict is resolved by the appeal to this higher principle created and ruled by Horus. There are certainly myths at certain times and places of various Gods or Goddesses “behaving badly”, but none of the stories are in evidence at Edfu. While The Contendings of Horus and Set from the 20th Dynasty Chester Beatty Papyrus portrays the Gods (including Horus) enacting numerous foibles and arguments, it is generally considered a satire (38), and hence not indicative of actual religious thought of the Egyptian priests of Horus, let alone of the Ptolemaic Era. The God Set stands out as perhaps the most adversarial being within the pantheon of Egypt, but by the time of the Edfu temple, this contradiction had been resolved by a reevaluation of his role.
Set was originally allied with the Gods in earlier dynasties despite his duel with Horus, being present on the solar bark to slay Apep, who was the original concept of evil and chaos in Egyptian mythology (39). However, the cosmology of Edfu placed Set firmly in the role of adversary, classified alongside Apep as the malevolent foe of the Gods (40)(41)(42). In fact, prior execration rituals using a wax image of Apep (43) were duplicated in Edfu with a wax image of Set as well (44). Yet how can a good God create an evil being? Theodicy for an Egyptian on this topic begins with the prior observed phenomenon of multiplicity: the more phenomena in the universe, the more complex it is, and the more complex it is the higher chance there is of unintended consequences to all actions. Any action people take, even a beneficial action, will produce negative effects of some kind for some thing eventually, preventing the establishment of a utopia in the mortal world; Set is the embodiment of this tragic conundrum. He is the being, according to Peterson, 'who eternally opposes the process of creative encounter with the unknown; signifies, alternatively speaking, a pattern of adaptation characterized by absolute opposition to establishment of divine order' (45). The placement of Set as the adversary in Edfu, rather than a 'prodigal God', resolves the contradiction of an evil being existing among the company of a pantheon of righteous deities by removing him from their number.
Set can be thought of as the adverse form of potentiality, that undesirable chaos lurking within any sufficiently complex system, resulting in adverse effects on life - shown in humans through malevolence and error - that threatens to destroy all we hold dear when it is unable to defend itself. Following Peterson, Horus bears the burden of the sacrifice of his eye by the encounter with this evil, as our minds do (46), but in defeating his adversary his eye has gained the insight to redeem his deceased father (47). This action serves as the template for an individual's own redemption arc (48), since the dead who were admitted into the afterlife were called “Osiris” themselves (49). Contra Pageau, Osiris and Horus indeed conquer death for all time as the object of resurrection, his father the subject, and the eye as the agent.
In the offering of Ma'at during the daily ritual, the human Pharaoh as representative of humanity recognizes this immense gift from Horus, and gives it back to him as an offering (50)(51). Other offerings were often called the Eye of Horus both in a funerary (52) and liturgical context (53), in recognition that our ethics and relationship with deity must also include successfully battling evil so as to redeem our culture (54), our loved ones, and ourselves, by his example. Each offering allowed Egyptian priests to partake in the mythic cycle of restoring the Eye of Horus to its place, just as they reenacted the divine creation of the world through emergence, by revealing the statue. By grounding ourselves in truth, we ally to that which exists, and can continually exist in a sense, as the Gods do by following Horus as we follow his example in this life.
Assmann, Jan (2001) The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 237-238.
Lichtheim, Miriam (1992) "Ma'at in Egyptian Autobiographies and Related Studies", Orbis biblicus et orientalis; 120, Freiburg, Schweiz: Univ.-Verl.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, pg. 14.
Assmann (2001), pp. 3-6.
Ibid., pg. 3.
Alliot, Maurice (1949) Le culte d'Horus a Edfou au temps des Ptolemees, Imprimerie de l'Institut Francais d'Archeologie Orientale, Cairo, pg. 162.
Moret, Alexandre (1902) Le Rituel du Culte Divin Journalier en Egypte, Annales du Musee Guimet, pg. 141.
Ibid., p.. 141-143.
Alliot (1949), pg 162.
Gaber, Amr (2009) “The Central Hall in the Egyptian Temples of the Ptolemaic Period”, Durham theses, Durham University, pg. 297, 299.
Ibid., pg. 214.
Stenger, Victor J. (2012) Defending The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, pp. 5-6.
Miller, Ryan Michael (2019), "Aristotle’s Heavenly Cosmology and Noether’s First Theorem", The University of St Andrews, draft accepted for Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 93, pp. 1-2, 10.
Lichtheim (1992), pp. 59, 89.
Lichtheim, Miriam (2006) Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume II: The New Kingdom, University of California Press, Los Angeles and Berkeley, pg. 156.
Lichtheim (1992), pp. 16, 37, 61.
Lichtheim (2006), pg. 142.
Lichtheim (1992), pp. 95, 113.
Lichtheim (2006), pp. 154-155.
Ibid., pg. 158.
Ibid., pp. 151-152, 155, 157.
Lichtheim (1992), pp. 27, 34, 108.
Lichtheim (2006), pp. 150-151.
Ibid., pg. 159.
Ibid., pg. 160.
Lichtheim (1992), pp. 42, 90, 98.
Lichtheim (2006), pg. 150.
Ibid., pg. 155.
Alliot (1949), pp. 142-143.
Lichtheim (1992), pg. 28.
Lichtheim (2006), pg. 155.
Meyer, Robert (1999) "Magical Ascesis and Moral Purity in Ancient Egypt", Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions, ed. bu Jan Assmann and Guy G. Stroumsa, Studies in the history of religions; Vol. 83 - Leiden; Boston; Koln: Brill, pg. 64.
E VII 78, 6-11; E VII 321, 5-8; E VIII 93, 6-12; E VIII 131, 12-15.
Lichtheim (1992), pp. 14, 21, 25, 75, 126.
Birch, Samuel (1875) Records of the Past: Volume IV Egyptian Texts, The Society of Biblical Archaeology, Samuel Bagster & Sons, Longon, pg. 127.
Lichtheim (2006), pg. 141.
Peterson, Jordan B. (2018) 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, Random House of Canada, pg. 56.
Kurth, Dieter (1998) Edfou VIII, Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 276-279 (E VIII 153, 3 - 154, 16).
Murashko, A. (2021). “Laughter, carnival and religion in ancient Egypt”. The European Journal of Humour Research, 9(2), pg. 30.
Turner, Philip John (2012) "Seth - A Misrepresented God in the Ancient Egyptian Pantheon?", University of Manchester Faculty of Life Sciences, pp. 16, 143.
Blackman, A. M. and Fairman, H. W. Fairman (1944) "The Myth of Horus at Edfu: II. C. The Triumph of Horus over His Enemies - a Sacred Drama (Concluded)", Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 30 (Ded., 1944), pg. 14.
Gaber (2009), pg. 484.
Turner (2012), pg. 139.
Faulkner, R. O. (1937) "The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus-III D. The Book of Overthrowing Apep", The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Dec., 1937), pp. 168, 171-172.
Schott, Siegfried (1929) “The Book of the Victory over Seth”, Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, sechste Abteilung, Heft 1, 1929.
Peterson, Jordan B (1999) Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, Routledge, New York, NY, pg. 130.
Ibid., pp. 30-31.
Ibid., pp. 131-132.
Ibid., pg. 134.
Assmann Jan (2001) Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, Cornell University Press, pg. 98, 145, 170, 263.
Alliot (1949), pg. 12.
Gaber (2009), pg. 469.
Edwards, Samantha (1995) "The Symbolism of the Eye of Horus in the Pyramid Texts", University College of Swansea, UK, pp. 167-168.
Alliot (1949), pp. 19, 20, 56, 58.
Peterson (1999), pg. 132.