GenesisNemesis

I was reading a wikipedia article on Dyonisus, and I thought it was very interesting. The other religions could not have "borrowed" from Christianity, because if they knew Christianity was the one true religion, why would they borrow from it? The borrowing idea just doesn't seem logical.

jakejonesiv

If you want to know about Dyonisus, read THE BACCHAE by Euripedes (ca. 405 BCE). It is a hoot.

Right at the beginning, Dyonisus (aka Bromius and Bacchus) says,

DIONYSUS: I've arrived here in the land of Thebes,
I, Dionysus, son of Zeus, born to him
from Semele, Cadmus' daughter, delivered
by a fiery midwife—Zeus' lightning flash.
Yes, I've changed my form from god to human,

Only two sentences in, and we already have two similarities that predate Jesus by hundreds of years.

Jake Jones IV

jgibson000

Except that this is not quite what we find right at the beginning:


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.


If you are going to make claims about what a Greek text says, it's best that you don't use an English tranlsation of that text as the basis of those claims, especially when they involve assertions about the existence of purportedly clear thematic, let alone lingusitic, "similarities" between a particular non biblical text and a biblical one.

Jeffrey Gibson

Camio

...which, when literarily translated, would mean... ?

jgibson000

This is a question that should be put to Jake Jones since he's the one who is making the claim about the certain existence of thematic (and presumably lingusitic) "similarities" between the story of Dionysus as told by Euripides and the story of Jesus as told by NT writers.

Ask him, too, if "similarities" (if such they really are) between two texts, one of which is later than the other, can only be explained on the view that the views expressed within the later text and/or its conceptions of such things as hUIOS TOU QEOU, are depenent upon, or are some way derived from, that of the earlier, as he seems to imply is the case.

BTW, "Camio", what's with the moniker? Don't you have have a real name?

Jeffrey Gibson

Amaleq13

I really wish you would use your clearly substantial knowledge base to inform others rather than waste time playing one-upmanship games or belittling the use of screen names.

jgibson000

Thanks for your concern.

But even in the light of it, the question remains why it is that Jake feels, as he obviously does, not only

(1) that the translation of Euripides Bacchae lines 1-5 he posted is an accurate one, but

(2) that thematic and lingustic "similarities" he sees between this text and certain texts in the NT are real and not merely apparent (not to mention eisegeted).

These are his claims, are they not? If so, then it's his obligation to defend them and to answer questions about whether they are sound and valid and sustainable, and what, in his eyes, justifies them.

Note too that in the confidence he displays that his assertions about the meaning of, and thematic and linguistic "similarities" between, Greek texts, are true and should be taken seriously, he lays claim to a possession on his part of knowledge that is requisite for saying that they are true, namley, a knowledge of Greek

Therefore, in the light of this, neither he -- nor you -- should object, or label it as one upmanship, when he is asked to defend his claims not only on the basis of the knowledge he claims to possess, but that he claims (if only implicitly) to have used to determine the their truth. It is, after all, only asking him to take responsiblity for what he says..

As to screen names -- I cannot help but wonder whether anyone who uses the ones that are used here would actually want to lay claim to them if, upon meeting someone in, say, a bar or in some formal social situation (and not, say, in a gamers or comic book covention), they were asked who they were. Can you imagine someone proudly saying "I'm Vivisector" or "I'm Amaleq13" without some awareness of how likely it would be that the person to whom he/she was introduced would immediately see "wierdo" and "nerd alert" signs flashing?

Please. In what is supposed to be a forum for serious academic discussion, the use of silly monikers is puerile.

Jeffrey Gibson

Toto

Jeffrey: This forum is for serious and semi-serious discussions, but is not limited to academic specialists or to those who know Greek or to people who feel confident using their real names.

As to the Bacchae:

I see no claim of linguistic similarities.

Are you saying that this and other commonly available translations which refer to Dionysus as the son of Zeus taking the form of a human are inaccurate? Can you refer us to a better translation?

jjramsey

This isn't a bar, though, but an Internet discussion board where the content ranges from the heavyweight to the lighthearted, and the social rules, for whatever reasons, have evolved to be somewhat different. If this were an exclusively academic discussion forum (like, say, Crosstalk), you might have more of a point, but it isn't.

jgibson000

Fair enough. But it doesn't answer the question of whether the use of silly monikers is puerile or whether anyone who uses them here would be embarrassed to use them in public semi serious discussions.

Curiously, on this one thing, Earl and I agree!

What you see and what Jake implied by pointing to "Son of God" and "taking human form" are, I think, two different things.

But why don't we let Jake himself answer this question?

They are misleading.

Have you looked at the Latimore translation?

And are you certain that the intent behind "Dionysus'" claim in vs. 1 that he is Διὸς παῖς (note, not hUIOS [TOU QEOU]) and in vs 4 that he has μορφὴν δ᾽ ἀμείψας ἐκ θεοῦ βροτησίαν (disguised himself as a mortal) is the same as the declarations by NT writers that Jesus is hUIOS TOU QEOU or by Paul that Jesus ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, [7] ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών?

Jeffrey Gibson