Talk:Dionysus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ackward

This, is awkward surrogate-fatherhood motif is an attempt to explain his being called "the twice-born" without invoking the mystery of a life-death-rebirth deity.

I removed this sentence for a couple of reasons. First, it presents hypothesis as fact. There could be a number of alternative reasons why the "surrogate-fatherhood motif" is so "awkward": for example, to reconcile differing local traditions. Second, the l-d-r-d thing is already mentioned twice: in ==Modern Interpretations== and in Categories. Bacchiad 20:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)nmkmnhjjnjgh

Madness?

This is partying!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.63.167 (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dionysus painting

...too gay... surely you could have found another way to phrase that. - Montréalais 18:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Surely I could have. Alexander 007 04:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • If I recall correctly, Dionysus was involved in some homosexual activity, so too gay is not a problem. CanadianCaesar 21:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't care for the image either. It's atypical. It would be nice if the first image on the page was helpful to the reader in identifying other images of Dionysus, and this one isn't. Jkelly 03:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well seeing as part of the point of Dionysus was that he was ambiguously both masculine and feminine (long haired in feminine style dress) I think commenting that he's "too gay" - at least in what I presume your narrow minded view of "too gay" to be - is a bit obtuse. However that said a greek depiction would probably be a good idea. Orias 09:43, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I placed a new image. Classical. Hits the tone. Alexander 007 23:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's also very similar to another image, further down the page. I prefer the prior image. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't. Let's have a vote. I'd rather remove the image further down. Alexander 007 23:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The one you added is in poor focus as well. I welcome a vote. In the meantime, let's revert the article so folks can make an informed decision. I'll trust you to do so in good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The one you prefer sucks :-) Who the fuck made that previous image king? It's been at the top of the article long enough. Alexander 007 00:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not reverting anything. The best solution may be to find a new image. Alexander 007 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was for the prior image, so I'd hope you'd do so out of respect for that. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What consensus? Jkelly didn't like it much either. That Renaissance painting is rather atypical: "Okay, that's a nice take on Dionysus. Looks like an Italian kid. Now where's the image of Dionysus?" Alexander 007 00:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're proposing a new image, you should leave the version intact where it is, and provide a diff. That way, you demonstrate that you are trying to improve the article with your (duplicative, out-of-focus) replacement of the image you described as 'too gay'. That would go a long way towards demonstrating that you are acting in good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Which one does it look like? The other ones have beards, while the beardless one at the bottom is Hermes. Alexander 007 00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the statue of Hermes, with the same spline pose and stand. The former image that you objected to, a painting, is more informative than the image you placed. I've got photos of Dionysus I've taken myself, I'll browse em and upload any that might help the article as well. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have no problem with a new image. I and others feel the Renaissance one is too atypical. You can revert for now if you want, I'm leaving it. Alexander 007 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry you feel that way (about refusing to revert for discussion). I'm going to revert the page and return the image to the top, and make an edit to place your suggested image in the article elsewhere, and browse my photo collection for others. I hope we won't be in an edit or revert war. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Good choice. I like the new image. I just took the previous one from Wiki commons in haste. It wasn't really the "gayness" that bothered me with the previous one, rather the Renaissance-ness. Alexander 007 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad you feel that way! My sincere thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

ties to christianity

I think someone who knows a little more about it than I should talk about the Orphic tradition of eating bread as the symbolic flesh of Dionysus, and drinking wine as his symbolic blood.

• I've expanded upon that section. Fascinating stuff. CanadianCaesar 21:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Neo-paganism section unsourced

There is no source at all for this discussion of different sects in Hellenic Neopaganism. Is this someone's first-hand reporting? Jkelly 03:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"God of Wine"

I'd just like to take issue with what appears to be a gross simplification in terms of dubbing Dionysus "The god of wine". This is one aspect of a god which is, effectively, the god of the irrational. As such wine is certainly an aspect of it - wine intoxicates, hence irrational - describing him as simply a god of wine ignores the far more animalistic and instinctual nature of Dionysus. The Bacchic cults did not induce women to run through woods tearing apart animals because they'd had slightly too much sherry. Orias 09:49, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'd also 2nd this and suggest that Bacchus be used to better explain how under the Romans Dionysus lost a considerable amount of his complexity and mystery. There is no seperate listing for Bacchus in en.wikipedia.org at this time it redirects indirectly into this page. Cmcollins (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't he also a god for something else besides wine? I think I remember that it was mentioned else where I just can't remember at the moment someone please inform me if I'm wrong (Grath Longfletch 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

We \in Bulgaria\ have studied, that Dionysus wasn't "The god of wine" of the Thracians, but their major God - "The god of the sun"!!! It's The Greeks who started worshiping him as "The god of wine"! Haven't you heard that??? Please, comment on this topic :) I'm sure that we should all research more :) (82.199.193.217 22:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)yavor)

While this is substantially late, I'm just curious: Would it be adequare to quote http://theoi.com/Olympios/DionysosGod.html when adding in things like "the god of wine, vegetation, festivity, madness, and pleasure"? It is true that Dionysos is a god much more than wine, though that seems to be one of his primary "miracles" (insert what word you will). His presence pervaded a lot of subject, like agriculture and festivals, and breaking down boundaries that existed in ancient Greece. I am trying to be NPOV here, but its been documented that he has done much more through other modes than wine. --Disinclination (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He was a traditional fertility / harvest figure, which in many religions and agricultural communities were given extreme importance in their pantheons.24.190.34.219 (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

almost certanly a late adition????

This is false. Though he was allways seen as being a late adition, never quite fitting in, evidence of his worship shows him at least as old as all other greek gods.

That sentence has been removed. Lots more should probably be removed from the article... --Akhilleus (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Mnemonic Devices

I think it should be noted, the possibility that Paul was using Hellenistic Metaphoar when using these well known terms. Rather then inspiring Christianity, can there also be room for these allusions being explanitory instead? -- IdeArchos 16:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hittites and Dionysus

Is possible that Nysa, the birth-city of Dionysus was the city Kanesh or Nesa in Eastern Anatolia? Is possible that the etymology of name "Dionysus" is "Deus (the) Nesian" i.e "God the Hittite"?

Note: The real name of the indoeuropean Hittites was "Nesites" or Nesians.

Many Greeks were sure that the cult of Dionysus arrived in Greece from Anatolia, but Greek concepts of where Nysa was, whether set in Anatolia, or in Libya ('away in the west beside a great ocean'), Ethiopia (Herodotus), or Arabia (Diodorus Siculus), are variable enough to suggest that a magical distant land was intended, perhaps named 'Nysa' to explain the God's unreadable name, as the 'god of Nysa.' Apollodorus seems to be following Pherecydes, who relates how the infant Dionysus, god of the grapevine, was nursed by the rain-nymphs, the Hyades at Nysa. The Anatolian Hittites' name for themselves in their own language ("Nesili") was "Nesi," however.

From site:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/dionysus

--IonnKorr 17:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Actually my question is about the enunciation, but that is usually specified along with the pronunciation. Anyone know if it's "dee oh NEE sus" or "dee OH nee sus" (or possibly something else I guess). — Donama 06:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You could consult a dictionary. Most Americans say "die oh NIGH sus". Don't really know what the pronunciation is in the rest of the English-speaking world. If your question is about the classical pronunciation, it might have been something like dee OH new sohs, but replicating their accent is tricky, since it was a pitch accent, and the placement of stress is controversial. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition re Prosymnus

The following text was added today, but it wasn't properly formatted: therefore it didn't appear in the article though it did destroy the link to footnote 7. I have, for the present, reverted.

Wax Tokens of Libido, Whitney Davis "Note 34: We can be fairly sure that the pederastic-homosexual origin of the Dionysian myth of Priapus was perfectly well known: Dionysus made the fig-wood phallus (the prototype of the phallic herm) as a pleasurable (and in the event quite usable) substitute for the penis of his deceased boyfriend Prosymna (see Julius Rosenbaum, Die Lustseuche im Altertum [Halle: XX, 1839], sect. 17)."

The material may be useful, and could be added to footnote 7, but perhaps the editor would explain the initial words "Wax Tokens of Libido, Whitney Davis". Are they a reference to a book, or what? Also, what is the XX in the other reference? Andrew Dalby 10:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, that was my addition and I did not realized it had interfered with anything. I had simply parked the text there so as not to lose it while I was gathering additional materials. Thank you for bringing it over here, I should have dome it myself from the beginning. That said, the material on Prosymnus bears quite a bit of expansion. It seems to involve a tradition of Lernean mysteries that Pausanias respected enough to mention but to specifically refrain from detailing. The story itself has less to do with sodomy (a Judaeo-Christian-Moslem term) and more to do with Greek pederasty. It seems the two topics mutually illuminate each other here. And Clement of Alexandria chimed in on this, shooting himself in the foot by informing us of a tradition which otherwise would have been quite lost. That aside, I find the style of footnoting here quite confusing, not that I mean to change anything. But why are we not using the simpler <ref></ref>? Haiduc 11:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I find it difficult too, but I haven't found the energy to change it! Do by all means add the information back into the article. Andrew Dalby 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

referencing

Has anyone noticed that there are a lot of "ors" in this article. I mean, granted these things were written a veerrry long time ago and by diferent cultures and in all of these stories have a counterpart, but it seems like just about everything written in this wikiarticle about Dionysus states that "either this or this happened" and nothing seems to be confirmed as is... or was.... or would be... DrakeKobra 20:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be the general rule for mythographical writing (unless you are setting out to write a good story) since there were many different and sometimes conflicting traditions (practically every state had its own tradition of Zeus being born in that vicinity), and stories kept changing over the course of time as well, as poets told their local stories or made up new ones. Haiduc 18:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Epithet?

The following epithet is purported to be discussed in Jameson, in "The Asexuality of Dionysus." Masks of Dionysus. Ed. Thomas H. Carpenter and Christopher A. Faraone. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1993. ISBN 0-8014-8062-0. 44-64: "Dionysus Khoiropsalas, for which "cunt-plucker" has been suggested, of Sicyon." This term, which doesn't appear in any literature at JSTOR, is obscure enough to warrant a reference. --Wetman 04:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The intrusion of this obscure reference, a ludibrium that throws no light on Dionysus, is simply a high-schooler's way of inserting a faintly prurient line into an article in which he has shown no other interest whatsoever. If Dionysus Khoiropsalas is attested at Sicyon, it will be in a published inscription, which, since it's not otherwise mentioned anywhere in the literature, needs a citation. A more authentically useful approach might be to create a Wikipedia article on Michael H. Jameson, author of the article in question. --Wetman 14:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's ok. I understand that you're the King of Wikipedia and that works put out with the names of jokers like Christopher Faraone on them can't REALLY be expected to be taken seriously. It's good, at least, that someone out there's taken up the task of protecting the god's good name from would-be hooligans. Enjoy your article! --Ben iarwain 21:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

There appears to be some large pixellated (sp?) goatse-ish picture in the "Worship" section - I'm not sure when this happened or how to revert that, but could someone address that? --Elro 01:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed from "worship" section

...and early Christianity (see "possessed by the saint"), as well as the preliminary animal sacrifice and distribution of meat to the village population, are at their origin not the Christian rites they are constructed as by the villagers who perform them, but the rites of Dionysus.<ref>[http://www.anagnosis.gr/index.php?la=eng&pageID=143 The Anastenaria: The Ancient Ecstatic Fire-Walking Ritual of Greece]</ref>

There is no "possessed by the saint" section in the Christianity article, and it is not a feature of Christianity I have ever heard of.

The Anastenaria are not only undocumented (per source) in "early Christianity", it is not even a characteristically Greek custom, let alone characteristically Christian. This is all according to the cited source, which places it strictly within small communities of Thracian refugees dating from the Balkan wars. As phrased, it's an extremely misleading passage not supported by the source in its breadth. If this belongs in the article at all -- and it probably does -- it should be in a section on modern Dionysian survivals. "Worship" is plainly the wrong place. Whatever these people think they're doing, they to not believe themselves to be worshiping Dionysus even if the Church condemns the practice as Dionysian in origin. (And as even the source states, there's no evidence of any such rite in antiquity, so this could easily be an error all around.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Parallels to Christianity

This section is written as if the issue was not in doubt, and very much needs balance.

Some of the material is very obscure. Although I can draw inferences as well as the next professional logician, I confess to being no classicist, so could someone please tell me what lines 3.690-691 have to do with this? A complaint about the length of a tale doesn't seem particularly apt. Perhaps Latin scholars can see parallels where the rest of us can't, but if so it needs to be explicated. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried a bit of a rewrite, but I came up against a problem. Early in the section it claims Dionysus turned water in to wine - later in the section it claims he never did. Short of removing both I can't find a way to resolve this. 199.71.183.2 20:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole section is poorly written, very biased, poorly referenced, and should be deleted, IMO. · AndonicO ^Talk 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Either delete it or re-write it - for a start Jesus wasn't born in a cave, to make out Dionysus was a virgin birth is really trying to twist the birth story, claims like "He stands between life and death, man and god, male and female." aren't referenced and stretching it for a parallel, since when was Jesus 'sexually ambiguous.' - there's no paralel here at all! claims like "depicted either nude or fully clothed." are also stretching it - how else are we expecting him to be depicted (and when did Jesus go around nude? He may have gone around fully clothed but then so do I and I'm not ripped off from Dionysus!) The article says Dionysus is the god of wine, so why does the parallels list say Dionysus was a death god? Jesus wasn't a sailor. "He was not an Olympian at first." and the fact Jesus wasn't an Olympian too says what? "In his worship, followers would consume human flesh, held to represent the god himself." and the evidence for this is? Finally the reference for Dionysus on a cross goes to an amulet which actually post-dates Christianity. Can we find some more credible sources to reference it to? Hardly any scholar thinks Christianity was ripped off from Dionysus yet the article does not give this impression —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.189.76 (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Jesus WAS born in a cave. The popular motif of a stable as an independent structure found today during Christmas is false, as the area of the middle-east, during Jesus-time, shepherds often kept their livestock in caves. I.E. the manger was in a cave. The section has warrent to stay, the fact is both Dionysus and Jesus represent the same archetype found throughout much of the world's mythology; e.g. the dying god.24.190.34.219 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

Yeah, this section is really biased-sounding and a lot like that that Zeitgeist web movie. I'm agnostic (so, no bias here), and to me many of the comparisons are really reaching. I'd knock out probably 2/3 or more of them. Maybe there are parallels, but please be more scholarly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.55.154 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoever finds sources might add some of these claims (and the reference) back to the article:

• He is the son of a god (Zeus) and a mortal woman and not of his actual human father (It is not entirely clear if she might have been a virgin, the conception however was immaculate)
• The god impregnates the virgin mother without sexual intercourse. (He gives her the heart of the dead Dionysos to eat in order to impregnate her)
• He is killed and reborn. His name means "twice born". He's worshipped as a god of immortality.
• He was born in a cave.
• Right after his birth his life was threatened by a powerful ruler (Hera).
• He is sexually ambiguous. In early portrayals he has long curled hair and a pale complexion. Later, he is shown with a long beard.
• He is depicted either nude or fully clothed.
• He is a sailor and can perform miracles at sea.
• He is a death god, a god that is human, a god that brings people closer to the god of the afterlife.
• He travels and teaches people a new religion.
• He transforms the community.
• He wore a headband/crown.
• He is a god of the people and of physical pleasures.
• He is a major god and the son of Zeus, the highest ranking god. He was not an Olympian at first.
• In his worship, followers would consume human flesh, held to represent the god himself.
• He was called a king.

Some seem to be fantasy, some may have ancient sources telling us so.--Flammingo^Hey 01:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of those need to be thrown out just for being so vague. Travels and teaches a new religion? Transforms a community? Wore a crown? Called a king? Holy crap. Also, that is a serious abuse of the idea of a "virgin birth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.79.182 (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the section is completely biased and vague. It only mentions in the first line how there are suggested parallels, then the rest of the section is set out to disprove Dionysus turning water to wine (which by the way, it doesn't matter if he actually did, it's the fact that the myth exists is important. you can find people who've "proven" that jesus never actually did it either, yet the fact that both had the same myth attributed to them is important). it mentions nothing about both being dying god archtypes and other parlalles. It needs some serious re-working24.190.34.219 (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thracia

Dionysos is claimed a Thracian god in Thracians page. And on Dyonisos page all is wordy and fuzzy. I remember from some turkish mithologists that D. was born in way East, ie current Iran into some people of grape vine agriculture and wine culture and traveled West, cult-entertaining the youth. 67.86.55.243 09:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC) wikici

current Iran evokes very misleading contexts. I found one unsourced claim he was born in Nysa, Anatolia, which of course even if true would only be one story among many, gods usually don't have a place of birth on Earth.--Flammingo^Hey 10:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

story sea voyage

From the sea voyage story, this had been tagged as unclear:Others say that Dionysus came on board after these sailors, having leapt ashore, captured him, stripped him of his possessions, and tied him with ropes they had almost succeeded. I agree, not only need some of the last words to be removed, but also there should be a quote for this, which would be easy to find (I just believe this second version was added later and would rather go for just one)--Flammingo^Hey 10:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thats pretty badly worded. As far as I know, the sailors captured him to sell him back to his wealthy father, not seeing him for a god. I don't recall in the myth Dionysos just leaping in. I'll try and find it. --Disinclination (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A good start for a genuine search would be the classical sources in translation at Theoi Project. Search "Dionysus" there and you won't have to look far. See if you can't add some text closely following a source, which you would reference using the <ref></ref> html. --Wetman (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I know of the existance of Theoi.com well. :) I found a reference for the first version of the story listed (I hope it's adequate), but nothing for the second one. I will try again later, if thats okay. --Disinclination (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Madness

Although I kept the word 'madness' in my edit of today, I wonder if the word 'ecstasy' would be better. Myrvin (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Any opinions on this?

Well, Nysa could be the Paggaion Mountain (Homeric name: Nysa - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaion_Hills). As for the dionysian festival, they are still intact in Greece. For example there is a festival called "Arapis" in Nikisiani (Paggaio municipality, Kavala) that many believe is a dionysian festival that survived through the christianization of the festival. You can see it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_twl5oG2nE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.104.161 (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth

I moved this, tagged for a citation by someone, here:

"His day of birth was December 25 in the calendar we have today."

I've never seen a birthdate for any Greek god, but then I've never seen their driver's licenses either...--Wetman (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Christian parallels

Just seen the Christian parallels discussion. No doubt these claims were poorly referenced and fuzzily argued but that is not how it has to be. In fact there is no real doubt that the Dionysus mystery religion, like the other mystery religions featuring a harrowing of Hell, was a precursor of Christianity. Nor should this be a problem for Christians. I will have to find the reference (it is discussed in Arthur Evans' God of Ecstasy but there was an early Chrisitian Jesus play overtly based on Euripedes' Bacchae. Meanwhile I refer offended Christians to the gospel of John where Jesus exapnds on the subject of how he is the vine etc.

Modern day Dionysus worship is shown perjoratively, btw, in Donna Tart's modern classic A Secret History I'll add that to the page; and maybe something about Christian connections. Jeremy (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Tartt's portrayal is pejorative, exactly; but in any case it's hard to add that to the article without some kind of secondary source. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This section of the article needs to be a report of what has been published in this somewhat dicey region.--Wetman (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem also is that a lot of info that was sourced was removed from the section for no reason on July 17 by SkreeHunter. I would like to add some (not all) of it back.24.190.34.219 (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Modern views

The paragraph beginning "Walt Disney" re-introduces the erroneous idea that 'Bacchus' was the Roman name for 'Dionysus'. This confusion was removed from the earlier versions of this article. Also, apart from calling the hero 'Hercules' instead of 'Heracles', didn't the series use the Greek names for the gods? The paragraph needs rewriting. Myrvin (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dionysus Qingdao beer jpg

Regarding the jpg image Qingdao beer.jpg -- should the name of the artist sculptor be referenced. I selected the detail link of the image, but I could not find the name of the sculptor listed. My understanding is that any reproduction of artwork should indicate the artist, as well as the medium and the size and date of the work. tesseract501 15 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.190.180 (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the most appropriate image for the article, since it is quite atypical of any traditional depictions. It is neither the effeminate Dionysus nor the bearded Zeus-like Dionysus, nor the horned Dionysus found on coins; it looks more like a Hercules than anything. Chinese beer is a rather odd connection for this article anyway... Fuzzypeg★ 01:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dionysus equals Jesus Christ?!

Yeah, (hicc!) halelujaaa! Said: Rursus (☻) 12:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what this comment is referring to in the article, but the theory of Dionysus having similarities to Jesus is because both fit certain mythological archetypes commonly found in the mythology of many cultures. In this case that of the dying god.24.190.34.219 (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dionysus and psilocybe mushrooms

I remember reading something from Tom Robbins suggesting that dionysus was a god of mushrooms before he was the god of wine. I know he is a fictional writer but he seems to know his stuff. Maybe someone with more experience on the subject can chime in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.16.118 (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Demeter as mother

I don't understand the sentence: "Diodorus' sources equivocally identified the mother as Demeter". Does 'equivocally' here mean doubtfully? I tried chasing down the Diodorus reference to no avail. Perhaps it should be 'equally'; or maybe even "unequivocally". Myrvin (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Now dug out the Diodorus page. He attributes the idea that Ceres was the mother of Bacchus to what he calls "fabulous writers". I think that means he didn't believe them. Myrvin (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dionysus' name

In the second paragraph, it says that Dionysus was also known as Bacchus. This could be construed to mean that the Greeks also called him Bacchus. Since Bacchus is the Roman name, can this be corrected?Ykerzner (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Dionysos was also known to Greeks as Bakchos. An ecstatic line from the lost Lykimnios of Euripides reads "Lord, laurel-loving Bakchios, Paean Apollo, player of the lyre". The line was quoted in Macrobius, Saturnalia I. 18.6, according to Karl Kerenyi, Dionysos: Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life, 1976, p. 233. Is Dionysos Bacchos specifically in his role as leader of the Bacchae in his thiasos? --Wetman (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Carl Kerenyi on Dionysus

Perhaps more should be said on Kerenyi's contributions, such as his interpretaion of Dionysus as the god of 'zoe', the concept of indestructible life without limitations. And also Herekleitos' identification of Hades with Dionysus, a relation which Kerenyi sheds light on in 'Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life' and in 'Eleusis: Archetypal Image of Mother and Daughter'. Kerenyi suggests this relation was pivotal in the Elusinian mysteries, and refers to the underworld god as 'subterranean Dionysus'. I'm not sure where to add the info - any ideas? --Kavita9 (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, unrelated to Kerenyi, I added a line about the fictional god Elua from Kushiel's Legacy after the mention of other Dionysus-inspired literature, whom I think is worthy of inclusion because of his associated traits, but I see they were removed. Does anyone have strong objections?

Under the 'Modern Views' section I would also like to add that Jim Morrison, lead singer of The Doors, found the god Dionysus to be an inspiration, and some of his lyrics contain references to Dionysian mythology.

Actually the Modern Views section looks like it needs to be cleaned up & reordered under subheadings as there's a lot of stuff there. Maybe Dionysus in Literature, Dionysus and Philosophy, etc. --Kavita9 (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved your insertion to Kushiel's Legacy, where it was relevant. Lists of references to Dionysus don't really illuminate the reader. Your report on what Kerenyi says, however, would be really worthwhile. Why not do that instead?-Wetman (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC) --Wetman (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Pentheus bit of the other stories section

"Because of their acts the women are banished from Thebes (the ancient Greeks did not have an equivalent of the "innocent by reason of insanity" plea), and thus Dionysus has his revenge." The italicised bit about the insanity plea: is this particularly relevant? If it is not (and I'm no authority) then it just breaks up the flow of the sentence. ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.119.77 (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sculpture commissioned to advertise the 100th anniversary of Qingdao Beer. Qingdao Beer Museum, Qingdao, Shandong province, China.

Beery Chinese sculpture

This sculpture commissioned to advertise the 100th anniversary of Qingdao Beer portrays a virile beaded male, who is unlike any classical representation of Dionysus, who, it is scarcely necessary to add, is not connected with beer anywhere but in this company promo, which is unsuited to illustrate Dionysus in an encyclopedia. The classical sculptures of Dionysus that were deleted to make way for this have been returned to the article.--Wetman (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2009 (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)

Christianity section: a little more balanced discussion is in order

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)

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)

"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)

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)

"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)

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)

No, that's not the best way to put it: we have the sources to tell us that Dionysos was part of Greek religion from (at least) the Mycenaean period; the myths of his foreign origin do not express a historical development, but rather say something about the nature of the god as one who invades from outside (the community or the self). This is something that is commented upon extensively by recent scholarship... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus expresses this well. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

'but rather say something about the nature of the god as one who invades from outside ' indeed that was Otto's point already back then...87.202.156.68 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Cults

Lots of etymology here, and lots of mythology - but has anyone noticed the complete absence of a section on his cults? We'd better write one, yes? Haploidavey (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This should be a brief section, with "Main article" tags; however, there's a bit of disarray among Dionysian Mysteries, Cult of Dionysus, Bacchanalia, thiasus, and orgia. I'm unclear about why Cult of Dionysus exists. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources missing on Ariadne

"In some variants, he had her crown put into the heavens as the constellation Corona; in others, he descended into Hades to restore her to the gods on Olympus. Another different account claims Dionysus ordered Theseus to abandon Ariadne on the island of Naxos for he had seen her as Theseus carried her onto the ship and had decided to marry her."

What are the sources for these variations?

ICE77 (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2011 (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)

I cannot find any reference that backs up the claim that Nisah and Nisam mean bliss in Sanskrit. Ananda means bliss in Sanskrit. Nisha (or Nisah, if there is a marker on the s, and other forms of this word) mean night according to the Sanskrit dictionary. Could someone verify this or delete it? Thanks. Olav Smith (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to restore the section as it was when User:Dbachmann last edited it, as this user has particular expertise in linguistics and agrees that this is unverifiable. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dionysus WAS one of the Olympian gods

This is in response to the person who said he wasn't. Dionysus eventually replaced Hestia, who willing gave her spot thus unbalancing the number of males and females.

check it out for yourself http://www.timelessmyths.com/classical/olympians.html http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_Dionysus_the_only_man_to_have_his_throne_on_the_womens_side_of_the_throne_room http://www.angelfire.com/planet/mythguide/dionysus.html

those are the top 3 google results — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.241.90 (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

Afak Dionysos means the twice borne one. Originally he was called Zagreus and died (burning to ashes only his heart remained) but because Zeus loved his son so much he implanted the heart in his leg and this way Dionysos was brought back to live after some time. I know it sounds strange, but hey, thats greek mythology. Athene fe. was borne out of the head of Zeus etc. -- 77.116.246.13 (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that's a case of false etymology. Although di as a prefix can mean "two," not every word beginning with di has that meaning. In this case, it's part of dion, a name associated with Zeus and perhaps other gods. Even if that connection weren't so obvious, nothing in the rest of the name appears to be etymologically connected with "birth". As attractive a theory as "twice-born" (or "borne") is, nysus has nothing to do with being born or carried. It vaguely resembles the Latin word natus, meaning "born", but it would have to be Greek, not Latin, and it's too easy to be mislead by the fact that two words resemble each other. Merely because one of them would produce a logical meaning if it were the one intended doesn't make it the correct etymology. P Aculeius (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

IP Editor

At present we've got a persistent IP editor adding unsourced content to this and another article. Feel free to revert and block on site, no additional warnings required. If the editor persists in IP hopping, then I'll protect the article, but I'd rather not if it can be avoided. Rklawton (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

He is now on Dionysian Mysteries as well. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Rklawton (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• This article now semi-protected for the long term. Rklawton, you're smart--can you figure out where all those IPs are coming from (looks like a school, maybe?) and if a range block is feasible? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We have reports like from Voltaire French philosopher of similarities between Moses and Dionysis, for example Dionysis being discovered in a basket in a river, and causing the Red sea to part for his followers. So now we have the situation of some saying that some of the events in the life of Moses was taken from the Dionysius myth or vice versa. Now Moses probably did exist and probably did lead the Israelites to the land of Canaan (now Israel), but him parting the red sea and floating around in the river Nile are a bit hard to believe. The most likely situation is that these events were taken from Orphic myths around about 5 th century BCE, when the Exodus story was written. The purpose was to give Moses mythic or supernatural credibility to add weight to the newly formed Hebrew religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.217.150 (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified I

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dionysus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150502030022/http://www.facsimileproductions.co.uk/page_1193321376829.html to http://www.facsimileproductions.co.uk/page_1193321376829.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified II

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dionysus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102090255/http://www.xs4all.nl/~schuffel/english/bacchus/ to http://www.xs4all.nl/~schuffel/english/bacchus/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:14, 27 February 2016 (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)

Actually, I think you missed another comparison altogether. I came her to find out who Bacchus was (again -- I vaguely remember his name from my Latin and English classes way back in high school lol) because Adam Clarke (who wrote a commentary on the Bible) said the Greeks borrowed much from the story of Moses to create Bacchus. If your interested on his take of how it relates to Christianity (and Judaism) you can find it in his discussion of Moses from Exo. 4:18. It brings a different kind of relationship to the topic that, so far, hasn't been addressed. His contention is the Greeks took their myth from the story of Moses. (The timing matches -- at least, according to the article in Wiki.) 98.115.150.131 (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is really out of date on this subject and even contradicts itself. It says several scholars dispute and then later few scholars dispute. What is actually being taught in Classics in the 21st century is that many pagan cults changed in reaction to the spread of Christianity, including the cult of Dionysus. The article needs to be updated from theories that were popular with some scholars 50 years ago. We have recovered many more ancient texts since then, and more archaeological evidence. 96.56.68.195 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)