jakejonesiv

Both Dionysus' followers (the Bacchic women) and Jesus' follower (Peter) escaped from prison by supernatural means; the chains falling off, and doors opening of their own accord.

And there's something else— those Bacchic women you locked up, the ones you took in chains into the public prison—they've all escaped. They're gone—playing around in some meadow, calling out to Bromius, summoning their god. Chains fell off their feet, just dropping on their own. Keys opened doors not turned by human hands. Euripides, The Bacchae 552-559. Translated by Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, BC.

Acts 12:5-10 (King James Version)
5Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.
6And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison.
7And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands.
8And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me.
9And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the angel; but thought he saw a vision.
10When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of his own accord: and they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Me??? I work second shift in a magazine distibution center. When I get my GED I'm gonna go to Oxford. Until, then Jeffrey B. is the GOD Grand Master of Greek around here.

Jake Jones IV

Chris Weimer

For the love of all things good:

-------------------------------------------------------

ἥκω Διὸς παῖς τήνδε Θηβαίων χθόνα
Διόνυσος, ὃν τίκτει ποθ᾽ ἡ Κάδμου κόρη
Σεμέλη λοχευθεῖς᾽ ἀστραπηφόρῳ πυρί:
μορφὴν δ᾽ ἀμείψας ἐκ θεοῦ βροτησίαν
5πάρειμι Δίρκης νάματ᾽ Ἰσμηνοῦ θ᾽ ὕδωρ.

I, child of Zeus, have come to this land of the Thebans,
Dionysus, whom the Daughter of Cadmus born,
Semele, brought forth by lightning fire
Changed my shape from god to mortal
Am here at the fountain of Dirca, the water of Ismenus

-------------------------------------------------------

However, I should note that the earliest material, Paul and Mark, do not discuss virgin birth, and Mark makes best sense as adoptionist, not as a God coming to earth as Mortal. It's disingenuous to equate the earliest Christian sources with these opening sentences.

jakejonesiv

What do you make of Gal 4:4? Did Mark 1:1 originally contain the phrase "Son of God?"

Jake Jones IV

Chris Weimer

There's nothing in either Mark 1.1 or Gal. 4.4 that suggests a virgin birth. Galatians may suggest something extra-ordinary, but then again, for Paul, Jesus was extraordinary.

The virgin birth stories are later inventions, and I doubt being rooted in the earliest stratum of tradition.

And once again, Mark makes better sense as adoptionist, meaning that God adopted Jesus to be his son. That's actually the opposite of Dionysus.

gstafleu

Assuming this translation is correct, how is Jake's original claim doing? We have a "child of Zeus". Given that Zeus is a god and Dionysos male, that is pretty close to a "son of (a) god." The difference here being a non-monotheistic god. And then we have "Changed my shape from human to mortal". I take it Chris means from god (θεοῦ) to mortal, or do I misunderstand? If so, that seems pretty close to the concept we see in the NT, where Jesus is supposed to be a human form of god. So far I'd say Jake is doing pretty good (which, in case anyone wonders, is a bar-like colloquialism for "doing well").

Gerard Stafleu

Chris Weimer

Hello Gerard,

Apologies for the mistake. Indeed I meant "god" and not "human". Small typo. Also, I think what Jeffrey was alluding to is that the earliest sources, not the "NT" (a collection of books canonized for Christian doctrine), is far removed from the passage.

Chris

PS - General hint for everyone: HJ != Christian.

jakejonesiv

Hi Gerald,

Thanks!

<jj4 edit: paragraph deleted: Jeffrey Gibson is a good man and I just don't feel like criticizing him today>

Chris, by contrast, provided the Greek and a translation, offered a straightforward observation, and answered my questions without obsfucating.
Consequently I learned something (Chris, you are right!), and I wish to thank Chris for his clarity and patience.

Jake Jones IV

jgibson000

Lets note first of all that the line numbering in the Greek text and in other English translations of this passage in Eur. Bacc, is 443-448, not 552-559.

Let's also note that there is no mention of "key"s in the Greek text, let alone "keys opening doors", nor of chains "dropping". So once again, we have some hard evidence that when seeking to see if there are parallels between texts, it is really foolish, not to mention methodologically foolhardy and illegitimate, to use as the basis of one's search English translations of the texts one is comparing -- unless, of course, you want to show yourself as foolish and foolhardy...

So let me get this straight, Jake. Are you claiming --yes or no -- that the Acts passage is both literarily dependent upon and thematically derived from lines 443-448 of Euripides Bacchae?

If you are, why is the vocabulary of the Acts passage so different from that of it's Vorlage in the Bacchae?

Here is the Greek text of Bacc 443-450 and of Acts 12: 7, 10 with the text underlying your alleged similarities between them bolded.

Bacc 443-450

ἃς δ᾽ αὖ σὺ βάκχας εἷρξας, ἃς συνήρπασας
κἄδησας ἐν δεσμοῖσι πανδήμου στέγης,
445φροῦδαί γ᾽ ἐκεῖναι λελυμέναι πρὸς ὀργάδας
σκιρτῶσι Βρόμιον ἀνακαλούμεναι θεόν:
αὐτόματα δ᾽ αὐταῖς δεσμὰ διελύθη ποδῶν
κλῇδές τ᾽ ἀνῆκαν θύρετρ᾽ ἄνευ θνητῆς χερός.
πολλῶν δ᾽ ὅδ᾽ ἁνὴρ θαυμάτων ἥκει πλέως
450ἐς τάσδε Θήβας. σοὶ δὲ τἄλλα χρὴ μέλειν

Acts 12:7, 10.

καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἐπέστη, καὶ φῶς ἔλαμψεν ἐν τῷ οἰκήματι: πατάξας δὲ τὴν πλευρὰν τοῦ �*έτρου ἤγειρεν αὐτὸν λέγων Ἀνάστα ἐν τάχει: καὶ ἐξέπεσαν αὐτοῦ αἱ ἁλύσεις ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν.

10] διελθόντες δὲ πρώτην φυλακὴν καὶ δευτέραν ἦλθαν ἐπὶ τὴν πύλην τὴν σιδηρᾶν τὴν φέρουσαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν, ἥτις αὐτομάτη �*νοίγη αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἐξελθόντες προῆλθον ῥύμην μίαν, καὶ εὐθέως ἀπέστη ὁ ἄγγελος ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ.

Is there really enough linguistic, let alone thematic and narrative, similarity between them to justify a claim of dependence/derivation of the Acts story on/from Bacc 443-450?

And is Bacc. 443-450 the only place in the whole of pre-Acts Greco Roman or Jewish literature where a miraculous deliverance from prison is narrated? For your claim to have any hope of being valid, it would have to be.

Sorry, but this is more ultracrepadarianism.

Jeffrey Gibson

Toto

It's spelled ultracrepidarianism, for those who want to look it up.