Set and Devil
A modern artistic rendition of Set (left), square-tipped ears and proboscis-like snout as compared to his modern-day reformulation as the Devil (Satan) or fallen angel.
In Egyptian mythology, Set, hieroglyph:Set H, stone "Set (Set) stone" symbol determinative, aka "Seth" or "Sut" (Massey, 1907), re-written, monotheistically, via the root “s-t-n”, as the Hebrew-Christian Satan (aka devil), said to be representative of the stony or red desert land (Budge, 1904), called "Σηθ" (Plutarch, c.100), identified with the Greek god Typhon (or Typho) in later times, was, in early Egyptian dynastic times, the chief god of the south, the twin god of Horus, the god of the north, who in the Pyramid Texts helped Ra get to heaven with his "ladder", who in later times became the god of chaos or adversity, symbolized by the was scepter; later the embodiment of evil or darkness; pictured with a long, erect, and square-tipped ears and proboscis-like snout, with either a red color or night black skin, which are said to indicate the head of a fabulous camel-snout like unidentified night-prowling animal called the Oryx. [1]

Set | Five forms
Historically, in the period 3,500BC to 500AD, Set had five dominate forms, each held in the belief systems of people, changing per period as the religion changed per each recension; the first four of which Budge (1904) summarizes as follows, dates added per supreme god timeline chronology: [4]

“We have now seen how the god Set was the opponent first of Heru-ur [3,100BC], then of Ra [2600BC], and finally of Osiris [1100BC] and his son Horus [332BC], and that during the long period of Egyptian history his attributes changed according to the various modifications which took place in the beliefs concerning this god in the minds of the Egyptians, and that from being a power of nature, the darkness, he became the symbol and personification of both physical and moral evil.”

The fifth form of Set, in the guise of Satan, the opponent of Jesus [300AD], aka Horus described monotheistically, per Roman recension (see: recension theory).

In 1887, Heinrich Brugsch, in his Religion and Mythology of the Egyptians, described Set thusly: [3]

“Set was the god of the downward motion of the sun in the lower hemisphere, in a southerly direction, and for this reason he was the source of the destructive heat of summer; and since the days began to diminish after the summer solstice, it was declared that he stole the light from Horus or Ra, and he was held to be the cause of all the evil, both physical and moral, which resulted therefrom.

The light which Thoth brought with the new moon was withdrawn by Set as soon as it was possible for him to obtain power over that luminary, and he was, naturally, thought to be the cause of clouds, mist, rain, thunder and lightning, hurricanes and storms, earthquakes and eclipses, and in short of every thing which tended to reverse the ordinary course of nature and of law and order. From a moral point of view he was the personification of sin and evil.”

In 1907, Gerald Massey, in his Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World, citing Heinrich Ritter (1841), defines the Hebrew-Christian Satan as a re-write of the Egyptian Set (or Sut) as follows: [7]

“The Hebrew Satan was the Egyptian Sut [Set], who became the evil one of the later theology as an anthropomorphic rendering of Apap [Apep] the serpent of evil. Sut was one of the seven sons of the old ‘first mother’, the goddess of the Great Bear in the astronomical mythology [astro-theology]. He was not one of ‘the sons of god’, as there was no god extant when he was born. Sut was brought forth twin with Horus, and first born as the adversary of his brother Osiris. In a truer version of the mythos the conflict was in phenomena that were physical, not moral.”
Jesus (Ravenna, c.550BC) 2
A depiction (Ѻ) of Jesus as Roman emperor, wearing military dress, holding cross, with sun disc behind his head, and crushing the serpent representing Satan [Devil] (aka Set as Apep). "I am the way and the truth and the life" (John 14:6) reads the inscription. Ravenna, after 500.

Massey then suppositions on the mythical character to human character switch as follows, in particular stated that much of the Set vs Horus story is found in the book of Job:

“There are no morals in mythology, when the characters are non-human, and when the mythical heroes and monsters have been represented as human characters we need to know the mythology once more. The Bible is full of such characters, and Job is one of them. In the ritual, Sut [Set] is the adversary of Osiris, or, stilt earlier, the opponent of Horus. He undoes what the ‘good being’ does. He is the malicious destroyer; the author of disease. lie is permitted to persecute Horus or Osiris to the death. In his character of the adversary, the power of darkness, he says. " I am Sut [Set], who causeth the storms and tempests. and who goeth round the horizon of heaven, like one whose heart is veiled" (Rit, ch. 39). Which is equivalent to saying: ‘I am black-hearted’. Sut is here the prototype of Satan, who ‘goes to and fro in the earth’, and of whom it is elsewhere said, ‘Your adversary the devil walketh about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour’ (I. Peter, v. 8). So, Satan the destroyer plays the devil with the person, the possessions, the belongings of Job. who answers to the suffering Osiris in this development of the ancient drama, in which Horus or Job was no more a human personage than is Set or Satan. They can be studied in the ritual [Passion of Osiris] without disguise or falsification of character, and without a long series of disputations, lamentations, and sermons taking the place of the primitive mystery. The ‘parable’ taken up by Job is the battle of Set and Osiris in the mythical representation. Job the afflicted one is the suffering Osiris who passed into Amenta as the victim of the power of darkness, Set the tormentor, the tempter, the desolator, the destroyer. Amongst other devilries, Set flung his ordure at Horus (Rit. ch. 17); he also pierced him in the eye; but, where Osiris suffered dumbly and opened not his mouth. Job laments his lot, and takes to cursing the day of his birth and wishing that he had been addled in the egg. The character of Job is fathomlessly inferior to that of the good Osiris, called the motionless of heart.

The suffering Horus transforms in ‘in the west’ and becomes the bennu Osiris or the phoenix. Job does the same, or expects to do so, when he says: ‘I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the phoenix’. The phoenix was the emblem of the solar god who died to resuscitate in the nest of Amenta. He enters the nest as a hawk and issues forth as a phoenix (Rit., 13, 1). When the battle with Set is over and Horus rises again triumphant over all his trials that were inflicted on him by the adversary, his property is doubled; he is crowned with the double crown as conqueror and king of the double earth. This is puerilely represented by the Lord restoring to Job two-fold of all he had before and overwhelming him with material wealth.”

In 1904, Wallis Budge, in his The Gods of the Egyptians, building on Brugsch (1887), stated that Set had two general forms, the first as darkness, the second as Apep the enemy snake of Ra; the gist of which is as follows: [4]

“The mythological and religious texts of all periods contain many allusions to the fight which Set waged against Horus, and more than one version of the narrative is known. In the first and simplest form the story merely records the natural opposition of Day to Night, or Night to Day, and the two Combatant gods were Heru-ur, or Horus the Elder, and Set. In its second form the two combatant gods are Ra and Set, and the chief object of the latter is to prevent Ra from appearing in the East daily. The form which Set assumed on these occasions was that of a monster serpent, and he took with him as helpers a large number of small serpents and noxious creatures of various kinds. The name of the serpent was Apep [Apep H] or Aaapef [Aaapef H], which is preserved in Coptic under the form [Set (Coptic)], but he was also called Rerek [Set (Rerek)], and since he was identified with a long series of serpent monsters he had as many names as Ra.”

Budge goes on to state that Set had two more forms:

“In the third form of the story the combatant gods are Osiris and Set, and we have already seen how Set slew his brother and persecuted his widow and child, and how he escaped punishment because Osiris had, at the time of his death, none to avenge his cause. In the fourth form of the story the combatant gods are Horus, the son of Osiris and Isis, and Set, and the avowed intention of Horus is to slay him that slew his father Osiris.”

These latter to "forms" of Set, refer to the Heliopolis recension [see: recension theory], wherein Set is the brother of Osiris, Isis, and Nephthys, wherein, in the so-called Passion of Osiris, Set kills Osiris, and chops him up into 14 pieces (the number of stars of Orion), and scatters his pieces about the land. Isis then re-collects the pieces, reassembles them, and, with the help of the powers of the god Thoth, resurrects the dead Osiris, then has reincarnation magical sex with him in the form of a kite, become pregnant with Horus, who then avenges his father as an adult, by cutting off the head of Set.

Budge also states that this Horus defeating Set story is moral parable of the idea that good always triumphs over evil, or light always triumphs over darkness in the older Ra vs Set (Apep) sense of the matter:

“The fight between Horus, son of Osiris and Isis, and Set, had a very important bearing on the destinies of the dead, for to it was attached the moral idea of the victory of good over evil, and the deceased was believed to conquer Set even as Osiris had done.”

The modern version of this is explained via free energy coupling theory. [6]

Horus-Set double god 2
A visual gist of how the Egyptian polytheistic model of the battle of dark vs light, in the gods of Set and Horus, morphed into the Roman monotheistic model of the battle of evil vs good, in the characters of the Devil (or Satan) vs Jesus.
Fall of Set | Satan / Devil
In the 19th dynasty (1292-1189BC), Set rose in power to become the supreme god of Egypt; Wallis Budge (pg. 251) summarizes this as follows:

“The cult of Set appears to have been revived under the XIXth Dynasty, for the second king thereof called himself Seti, after the name of the god, and this king caused bas-reliefs to be set up in his temples wherein Set is represented in the act of performing the coronation ceremonies. Under this Dynasty we have another king called after the name of the god, i.e. Seti II, Menephthah, but after that period the figure of Set appears in no cartouche, and his evil reputation increased.”

In the 20th dynasty (1189-1077BC), as Budge further notes, Set became demonized to such an extent that “bent statues” of him have been found:

“To the XXth Dynasty probably belongs the very interesting bronze figure of Set in the British Museum (No. 18,191), which was worn as a pendant, and was originally plated with gold; the god stands upright and wears the double crown of the South and the North and a uraeus. When found the figure was bent double, a position which it was made to take by violence, probably by someone who detested the god, but the body has been straightened out and it is now possible to examine the head of the Set animal, which in this specimen is finely shaped.”

In c.900BC, or "much later" than the 20th Dynasty period, as Budge puts it, a small wooden Set animal (British Museum: No. 30,460) was made, found standing on a pedestal on which is a sepulchral inscription, addressed to Set, which reads: “the great god, lord of heaven, [give me] life, strength, and health”. Here, we see Set seen as a good god, at least by some, in this period.

In c.600BC, Set began to be transliterated, via the root “s-t-n”, as Massey (1907) notes, in the Hebrew recension, in Judaism (Hebrew mythology), into the term “Satan”, meaning "adversary, one who plots against another"; later, in Greek mythology, this became synonymous with “diabolos”, aka devil. (Ѻ)

In c.520BC, Pythagoras, and or the “Pythagoreans”, as Budge (1904) puts it, looked upon Typho to have been of the rank or order of Demons, as, according to them, “he was produced in the even number fifty-six”, per generalized grouping scheme, as summarized by Plutarch (c.100AD):

“The power of the triangle is expressive of the nature of Pluto, Bacchus, and Mars, the properties of the square of Rhea, Venus, Ceres, Vesta, and Juno; of the dodecagon of Jupiter; so, as we are informed by Eudoxus [c.390-337BC] (Ѻ) is the figure of 56 angles expressive of the nature of Typho: as "therefore all the others above-mentioned in the Pythagorean system are looked upon as so many Genii or Demons, so in like manner must this latter be regarded by them.”

Here we see that, for whatever reasons, in the years 1200 to 500BC, Set became demonized.

In 100AD, Plutarch, in his On Isis and Osiris, and or Sam Squire (1744), his English translator, stated the following conjectural connection between Set and Moses:

“Now as to those who pretend that Typho [Set] escaped out of the battle upon an Ass after a flight of seven days, and that, after he had got into a place of security, he begat two sons, Hierosolymus and Judaeus, it is obvious from the very face of the relation, that their design is to give an air of fable to [what] the Jewish history [relates] of the flight of Moses out of Egypt, and of the settlement of the Jews about Jerusalem and Judaea (Squire’s Translation).”

Wallis Budge (1904), in commentary on this, states the following:

“As a proof of the correctness of Plutarch’s statements may be mentioned the figure of Set, which is reproduced from a Demotic papyrus at Leyden by Signor Lanzone, and which represents the god as having the head of an ass; on his breast, which is that of a man, is inscribed the name CHθ.”

It is blurry here as to what exactly Budge proved? Possibly Squire, barring a reading of the exact translation, added in his own commentary and Budge is reading into this?

2 Kings 2 24 (decoded)
Above: a Horus Gilgamesh Awkward Moments: Children’s Bible (2013) rendition (Ѻ) of 2 Kings 2:24 [see also: Joshua 10:13] and the story of how Elisah issues a “curse” on 42 boys, for calling him bald, that draws two female “bears” out of the woods, who tear the boys to pieces. [5] This strange-sounding Biblical story, accordingly, i.e. according to recension theory, is a rewrite of the Set and Horus battle, in the form of two bears. The 42 boys are rewrites of the 42 gods of the judgment hall, i.e. 42 nome gods of Egypt. The character Elisah, or El-sah, is Hebrew for “god Sah”, i.e. the Orion constellation version of the god Osiris.
Two bears | Set vs Horus
See main: 2 Kings 2:24
Budge states (pg. 245) that the first time Horus and Set fought, it was in the form of men, and that the second time it was in the form of "bears". This would seem to be an astro-theology reference, to a bear-shaped constellation. The constellation of the “Great Bear” (Ѻ) is the sign (Ѻ) of Set; similar to how the Orion constellation is the sign of Osiris.

The following are related quotes:

“I do not intend to do here what other scholars already have done well. Jeffrey Russell and others, e.g., have attempted to investigate cross-cultural parallels between the figure of Satan and such figures as the Egyptian god Set or the Zoroastrian evil power Ahriman. What interest me are the specific social implications of the figure of Satan.”
— Elaine Pagels (1995), The Origin of Satin [2]

1. (a) Budge, Wallis. (1904). The Gods of the Egyptians, Volume Two (§:15: Set, or Suti, and Nephthys, pgs. 241-60). Dover, 1969.
(b) Carus, Paul. (1900). History of the Devil (pgs. 15-28) (Ѻ). Publisher.
(c) Jordan, Michael. (1993). Encyclopedia of Gods: Over 2,500 Deities of the World (pgs. 233). Facts on File, Inc.
2. (a) Russell, Jeffrey B. (1970). The Devil: Perceptions of Evil Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. Cornell University Press, 1987.
(b) Pagels, Elaine. (1995). The Origin of Satan (pg. xviii). Vintage Books.
3. (a) Brugsch, Heinrich. (1887). Religion and Mythology of the Egyptians (Religion und Mythologie der Aegypter) (pg. 703). Publisher.
(b) Budge, Wallis. (1904). The Gods of the Egyptians, Volume Two (pg. 244). Dover, 1969.
4. Budge, Wallis. (1904). The Gods of the Egyptians, Volume Two (pgs. 244-45; Typho as #56, pgs. 252-53; four forms, pg. 254). Dover, 1969.
5. Gilgamesh, Horus and Tickheathen, Agnes. (2013). Awkward Moments Children’s Bible, Volume One (Foreword: David McAfee) (eB) (Ѻ) (Tear Those Boys to Pieces, pgs. 23-24). CreateSpace.
6. Thims, Libb. (2011). Thermodynamic Proof that Good Always Triumphs over Evil”, Journal of Human Thermodynamics, 7: 1-4.
7. Massey, Gerald. (1907). Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World: a Work of Reclamation and Restitution in Twelve Books, Volume Two (pg. 493). T. Fisher Unwin.
8. (a) Plutarch. (100AD). On Isis and Osiris. Publisher.
(b) Squire, Sam. (1744). Plutarch's Treatise on Isis and Osiris (pg. 15ff). Cambridge.
(c) Budge, Wallis. (1904). The Gods of the Egyptians, Volume Two (pgs. 253-54). Dover, 1969.

External links
Set (deity) – Wikipedia.

TDics icon ns