Talk:Dionysus

a little more balanced discussion is in order (on: Christianity section)

The section on alleged ties between Christianity and Dionysus is quite weak and one-sided. Little is said about the arguments against this view. Furthermore, couldn't views of more mainstream scholars than Mr. Larson be cited? --Killerwasp 18:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)--

-as far as I can see, the idea christianity copied it is more of a conspiracy theory yet the article makes out that this is a widly accepted idea. You only need to look on Google and see the lack of articles on it (which if there was strong evidence of the idea being true you would hear more about it). Only reading the rest of the article you are aware of the differences between Jesus and Dionysus and that the similarities are greatly exagerated. Is it techniclly a conspiracy theory and if so, could we call it that in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.237.215 (talk • contribs) .

I agree that the article may be giving Larson undue weight. The views that the article attributes to him go well beyond "Parallels with Christianity"; if his theory that Dionysus is a "replica" of the "grand prototype Osiris" is noteworthy, it should be covered under Worship along with the possible Cretan antecedent. But I can't find evidence that this is a noteworthy view. Henrichs's article in OCD includes a paragraph on potential non-Greek "component"s to Dionysus without mentioning Osiris. Burkert in Greek Religion (p. 163) mentions Osiris only as a possible source for some aspects of Dionysus' cult from the seventh century and later: "[I]n the period after 660, the increasing influence of the Egyptian Osiris religion must be taken into account, something which can perhaps already be discerned in the ship processions of the sixth century." If there's no objection, I'll remove the discussion of Larson in a few days. EALacey 04:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is little evidence. Read the whole article. Does it really look like Jesus and Dionysus are the same? This should be deleted unless better evidence can be found. It certainly is a minority view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.100.20 (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

the same, well, if brought to an extreme, no, and there is a lot of literature on the marriage of Kana and the pre-Christian era traditions. Google may not help, but so what. The Faculty of Theology Bochum (http) brought this article with many arguments and sources, and this service drew interesting parallels as well. Deleting the section is not an option, but giving a source with Dionysus stories independent from this context would be better than linking to atheist pages. --Flammingo^Hey 23:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhmm, there are actually tons of academic writings comparing the two and using Google search results to counter this fact is completely illogical. If one actually did academic research and looked in libraries and read up on comparative mythology you would see this. While I agree, a more detailed account of scholars opposing this view should be added to the section, it is up to you to find those sources and include them in the article. As it stands, the section and information should not be deleted (perhaps edited down). Since the info is properly cited and from reputable sources, it is constituted as notable and therefore, under, wiki guidelines, should be included in the article. It is not up to you to decide which information should be removed from an article, and censor it, merely because you disagree with the academic theory and find it "ridiculous".24.190.34.219 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Parallels with Christianity

Scholars universally reject this ridiculous idea. Dionysus was not born of a virgin, he was conceived by Zeus and Semele. He was not a life death rebirth deity. He did not turn water into wine, but rather left jars outside overnight, and wine filled them up in the morning. PLEASE fix that chapter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.251.243 (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay I know this is late, but one version of Dionysos' birth was that Semele was fed a concotion from Zeus that was made from Zagreus-Dionysos' heart. I'll try to get that for you/the article. You are right on the second part, though I believe the comparison is that they made wine from something else (Dionysos: nothing at all; Jesus: water). Hope that helps. --Disinclination (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that deities can be constructed out of multiple other deities, so even if there are large differences between Jesus and Dionysus, the former still could have drawn from the latter. Aeonoris (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there would be no reason to. You can make anything sound like it ripped something else off with that kind of reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.79.182 (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but saying "Scholars universally reject this ridiculous idea" is completely wrong, as there are tons of academic writing comparing the two, and as long as the info is properly cited and from reputable sources, it is constituted as notable and therefore, under, wiki guidelines, should be included in the article. It is not up to you to decide which information should be removed from an article, and censor it, merely because you disagree with the academic theory.24.190.34.219 (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dionysos died on the cross?

I just noticed this in the article, and clicked the link. The website makes no mention of Dionysos dying on the cross (in relation to Jesus). It only makes a comparison between both dying then being reborn again. I'm going to remove it (it is/was reference 27), since it seems completely out there and there is no references to back it up (other than this Wikipedia article). Feel free to add back if you can find a reliable source. --Disinclination (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Being a vegetable cult where you die every year and then come back every year is a little different than Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkreeHunter (talk • contribs) 17:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the idea that Dionysus was crucified comes from a stone found with a crucified guy on it that said something along the lines of "Bacchus Orpheus" on it. It was on the cover of Freke and Gandy's wonderful book. There's no story involving Dionysus being crucified, except one for him crucifiying someone else. I'm pretty sure about Orpheus too. Anyway, whether the stone is a forgery or not (some think it is) it's not important because it dates from the second to fourth century AD anyway. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Parallels with Christianity Section

I would like to disagree with the current state of the "Suggested Parallels with Christianity" section and the edits done by SkreeHunter on July 17. He removed a large amount of sourced information. Even if he personally found the information as stretching, the fact was that it was sourced and actual published scholars stating such-and-such, not random users, therefore the info met Wiki's guidelines for inclusion and notability. They should not have been removed.

Additionally, the section gives absolutely no information on parallels between the two, which whether people want to admit it or not, do exist. For one, there's no mention how both represent the dying god archetype found throughout the world's mythology.

All the section currently contains is one sentence saying that parallels have been suggested, but then does not expand on what these parallels are. The rest of the section is spent disproving a Dionysian myth of turning water to wine. First, it's the simple fact that both Dionysus and Jesus had a water to wine myth associated with them that's important, not if if actually happened. If you never believed in Dionysus, then of course he didn't do it. You can find non-christian scholars that have "proved" Jesus never turned water into wine. Both are "mythological" figures, both have a similar myth.

This section seriously needs expansion, and I would like permission to revert some (not all) of SkreeHunter's. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading the info that's left and what was removed... the current bit about Heinz Noetzel's Christus und Dionysos was in response to other info that was removed by SkreeHunter. Why keep it in, if what it was responding to was removed? Currently it is presented as if it was disagreeing with the claim that parallels exist between Jesus and Dionysius, as opposed to an individual historical basis of a myth, which is false. Unless the material that it was responding to is added back to the article, it makes no sense to include this bit.24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to restore some semblance of information and order to the section, with proper citation.

I'll repeat: there are tons of academic writing comparing the two, and as long as the info is properly cited and from reputable sources, it is constituted as notable and therefore, under, wiki guidelines, should be included in the article. It is not up to you to decide which information should be removed from an article, and censor it, merely because you disagree with the academic theory.24.190.34.219 (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically what you did was do what I did, except the opposite. I at least left in the quote disagreeing with my stance while having one that did. Now it's totally unbalanced. For the virgin birth deal, all you need to do is to scroll to the top of the page and check the corresponding articles yourself. I did not touch them. Partly human? Just about every other god in existence. Bread, I'm not aware of, but I remember wine being a pretty popular drink back then. Look, if you want to have one opinion on this page about it, that's fine but we need to have differing opinions out there too. Yeah, I got a little lengthy about some parts, but it's that I know the myths myself but unless someone wrote a book about it, I can't say anything.69.254.76.77 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with if I agree or have an opinion on the statements or not. Wiki's job is to present the academic material on a subject. If a reputable journal or author discussed a theory, even if we think it's wrong, it can be included in the article. This material should be presented neutrally as a theory not shoved down readers throats like proven facts. I'm all for and want differing opinions, but once again they have to be sourced. You also have to keep in mind Dionysus like almost all gods had numerous myths about him, many of which disagreed with each other. Some may say he had a virgin like birth others not. Again it's all dependent on citing a reputable source that discusses these myths, not what we think or know. The section is called "Suggested Parallels with Christianity" so of course it's going to be about what some scholars propose as parallels, and yes, everything included in the section was argued in the sources whether you think it's true or not. The section is also not unbalanced. NPOV pertains to represent the material in proportion to how it exists in academia. Since most people view the two religions as not related as a default, most of the writing that exists countering it is in response to the theories. So in that section, a section about suggested parallels mind you, it's completely in proportion to the material available as responsa literature is naturally less numerous. I personally don't believe the two religions are connected, BUT I do not think Wikipedia should exclude or censor a theory, especially one that has been argued in legitimate academic resources. 209.2.234.111 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Way too many pictures...

There are way too many pictures within the article itself, and this is disrupting the flow and order of the sections. The main thing is that they are all, for the most part, just random images of Dionysisus with no real relation to where they are placed in the article. I'm going to move some to an image gallery at the bottom of the page. Feel free to edit this and add some of the images back to the main article, but when doing so, try to keep in mind their relevance to that section of the article and how a bunch of huge pictures can mess up the formatting of an article page.24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Tyla, you stupid hoe..."

The following quote is found close to the end of the "Worship" section:

Walter Burkert relates, "Quite frequently he is NOT portrayed with bull horns, Tyla, you are WRONG you stupid hoe.... and in Kyzikos he has a tauromorphic image,"

I find it rather doubtful that an academic scholar would have said something like this. Vandalism alert.

72.77.102.232 (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"However, these theories are not without their detractors, notably from Christian scholars."

Can someone please excuse the tone of that section which takes a comparison against Jesus, surely it's slightly POV? Faro0485 (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem with this line is that this side of the argument is summed up in a simple and vague sentence. More should be included from the source cited there.

It's not really against NPOV simply because it is presented in relation to the amount of material out there. Jesus and Dionysus not being related is sort of the default point of view, so scholars aren't going out of their way to write papers on how they're not related. There are scholars that argue parallels, and the detractors are often simply responses to those papers/books and thus less in number. NPOV states to present the arguments in proportion to the material out there. With that being said, that statement could used expansion, at least mentioning why they are against the theories instead of just saying that they are. Another problem, though, is that a lot of editors on wikipedia have their own agenda and just want to delete the section out right instead of finding the information to cite (just look at that sections revision history).24.190.34.219 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

it's not "pov", it's just badly researched and badly referenced. "Such theories" is just lazy. Pointing out parallels isn't a "theory", it's just an observation. It's the interpretations of such parallels that are theories to be criticized.

Scholars very much go out of their way to trace parallels between the mythology of Dionysos and Christ (not the historical Jesus, that's beside the point, but the miracle stories in the gospels and the theology as it evolves over the early centuries AD). One of the links cited for the supposed "detracting" of "such theories" in fact references an essay that claims that Dionysian monotheism and Christian monotheism existed in direct competition in Cyprus during the 4th century. It doesn't get any more obvious than this. The historical Jesus had very little (read: nothing) to do with various competing brands of monotheism practiced in 4th century Cyprus.

You are perfectly right in saying that "NPOV states to present the arguments in proportion to the material out there". There is significant material researching such parallels. If you can cite references of an equally scholarly quality that "detract" from such research, you are very welcome to add them. --dab (𒁳) 14:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Dionysos WASN'T one of the Olympian Gods!!!

I have to admit that there always will be some morons to write on internet whatever comes up to their mind and mislead people. First of all Dionysos YES was a Greek god however he wasn’t among those of Olympus Mountain. Here comes a little lesson. The Olympians where six MEN and six WOMEN (Greeks always loved their women and thus they had equal number of Male and Female Gods). The gods and goddesses are Deus (ΔΙΑΣ), Hera (ΗΡΑ) Poseidon (ΠΟΣΕΙΔΩΝΑΣ), Athena (ΑΘΗΝΑ), Apollo (ΑΠΠΟΛΩΝ), Aphrodite (ΑΦΡΟΔΙΤΗ), Hermes (ΕΡΜΗΣ), Hestia (ΕΣΤΙΑ), Aries (ΑΡΗΣ), Artemis (ΑΡΤΕΜΙΣ), Hephaestus (ΗΦΑΙΣΤΟΣ), Demetra (ΔΗΜΗΤΡΑ). (I don’t care about the respective Latin stolen ones, and their Latin names as you can understand). As long as I know from the ancient scripts Dionysus never crucified nor died. After all he was god (immortal-if someone knows what I mean) and it was believed that he was leading most of the Ancient Festivities as he was the god of wine. As for the crucifixion thing I haven’t read that version of story to any Greek written scripts. Maybe that is another ignorant fiction outcome from some-idealist stupid, I Know Everything Person. Read and try to find the truth because truth is like diamond is hard to find, shines for ever, and it’s hard to destroy. Wake up people!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.120.169 (talk • contribs)

indeed you are right dear anonymus, and Wikipedia does have a Twelve Olympians article, so you could just have linked there instead of posting your little lesson. --dab (𒁳) 15:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

Dionysos = Zeus (Dios) of Nysa (Caria) Böri (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's propably Dios of Nysa (mythology), and whether that's the Nysa in Caria seems doubtful. The competing theory seems to be that Nysa (Caria) was dedicated to Dionysus when it was founded, and it might have been named after the mythological Nysa. Are there any sources linking the Dionysos myth to this specific city? Huon (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nysa" itself is to be explained, as the name is clearly just derived from the name of Dionysos. That is, your etymology is really a folk etymology which produced the toponym "Nysa" (which notably is nowhere in particular, it doesn't matter where exactly but always somewhere extremely remote). Etymologists since the 1980s have come up with a valid explanation, beginning with the careful analysis that of the names attested, the Dienusos forms are the most archaic, so that the stems that need to be etymologized are die- and nus-. --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Anon revert warring

This paragraph

"However, these theories are not without their detractors, notably from Christian scholars. Biblical Studies on the Web The Jesus Mysteries - a critique Scholars such as Paul Barnett note that such theories often ignore the historical Jesus, focusing solely on "a mystical mindset and therefore oppose Christianity as grounded in history." The Jesus Mysteries - a critique

has been repeatedly restored by an anonymous editor[1] The paragraph is (a) not based on quotable sources (two urls, one at www.bsw.org, the other at your.sydneyanglicans.net. and (b) they are beside the point, as they criticize something that isn't even proposed here (the "Jesus myth theory", or other approaches that "oppose Christianity as grounded in history". This is the Dionysus article, not the Christianity article, nor the Jesus Christ article. If the Jesus Christ article were to go off on lengthy tangents of how the Christ myth is extremely parallel to the Dionysus myth, such criticism would be adequate, as the topic of Jesus Christ has a wider notability than just comparative mythology. The same discussion is perfectly WP:DUE in a "comparative mythology" section in the Dionysus article.

If the anonymous editor keeps restoring this paragraph without discussion, I will just semiprotect the article. --dab (𒁳) 14:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Poison Ivy?

In Other stories, under Lycurgus, the article says "thinking he was a patch of poison ivy, a plant holy to Dionysus". But in the Poison Ivy article it says "Poison ivy and its relatives are virtually unknown in Europe". Perchloric (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes removed, & other version of his death added. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Thracian" origin

We have an enthusiast who hopes for an origin in Thrace, based on "Thracian mythology"— which hasn't survived in fact, and that "some say he was of Greek origin". The following web blog was adduced to press the case: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/thracian-gods.htm

Two books are adduced as citations: one, Thomas McEvilley, The Shape of Ancient Thought, discounts the Thracian origin, and the other, Reginald Pepys Winnington-Ingram, Sophocles: an interpretation, actually merely notes that Herodotus identified Thracian deities as Ares, Dionysus and Artemis (by interpretatio graeca).

Can we get a more balanced view of the "Thracian" origin of Dionysus?--Wetman (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See also apparently the same editor's edits to Orpheus (e.g this). I've reverted these edits once there, but was reverted. Paul August ☎ 22:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The best I could drag up is W. F. Otto's Dionysus: myth and cult, Indiana University Press, 1995, (English translation of Otto's 1960 original). Page 58 has "It is well known and has been expressed often enough how ardently Dionysus was worshipped in Thrace..." On the other hand, his cult "could just as well have found its way from Greece to Thrace." [2]. Reading on, I see that Otto comes out against the Thracian hypothesis.Haploidavey (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Greek and Roman sources vary on this point. Concur with Wetman's view in general. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Fritz Grafs article on Dionysus from the dictionary of demons and deities in the bible (Brill 1999) might be of some use here

"Dionysos, the Greek god of ecstasy, bears a name of uncertain etymology, although resembling the usual Greek types of anthroponyms (e.g. Dio-doros, “gift from Zeus”). Accordingly, ancient authors agree to see the name of Zeus (gen. Διός) in the first half; some understood -νυσος as a foreign word for son (“Son of Zeus”), others derived it from the mythical place of his upbringing, Nysa (“Zeus from Nysa”). These etymologies are linguistically valueless, but reflect the god’s status with regard to Zeus, whom mythology makes his father. At the same time, Greek myth regularly tells of Dionysos’ arrival from abroad, especially from those foreign places, where Nysa was located (Stephanus Byz. gives a list of ten places, from Asia Minor to Ethiopia and India). By reading these myths historically, insisting on Dionysos’ non-Gk characteristics, and pointing out his absence from Homer, modern historians of religion, from N. Fréret and E. Rohde to M. P. Nilsson theorized that Dyonysos was a god of foreign origin and had arrived from Thrace or Phrygia (or from both) during the Archaic age (see McGinty 1978); others protested, notably Meuli (1975), Otto (1933) and Kerényi (1976). The dispute has been settled by the decipherment of the Mycenaean (so called Linear B) documents: like other later Olympians, Dionysos is present in the pantheon of Mycenaean Greece, and a recent text from Mycenaean Chania in Crete is witness to a cult together with Zeus (Hallager 1992). Toorn, K. v. d., Becking, B., & Horst, P. W. v. d. (1999). Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible DDD (2nd extensively rev. ed.) (252). Leiden; Boston; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brill; Eerdmans."

..and of course Ottos Dionysus..if dionysus had any 'thracian' connections other than sabazios those must have been really old (but do see Otto) but im not sure how popular the ideas of a pregreek thracian substratum are nowadays (Jan Best comes to mind)..87.202.140.189 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok then lets just say, in the meantime, that his origins are not certain, but mention that he could have been either thracian or greek, saying that some historians are divided on the issue - some thinking he is thracian and some thinking he is greek; until we find more sources that can shed more light on the issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.242 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)