Question for Hellenic Pagans

[David19]

I wasn't sure where to put this, in the history forum or this one, but this is something i'd like to know. Does anyone know how the ancient Greeks saw the gods of other nations or tribes, etc, 'cause i've heard several things, some say they saw them as seperate deities to their own, and respected the gods of others, other places say they equated their gods with the gods of others and were 'soft' polytheistic (in the sense of believing in one pantheon which manifests in different cultures under different names), and many other things, it's something i'd like to know.

I've read on this site (http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Alexander_and_the_Jews_.asp) that:


The narrative concerning Alexander's first interaction with the Jews is recorded in both the Talmud (Yoma 69a) and in the Jewish historian Josephus's Book of Antiquities (XI, 321-47). In both accounts the High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem, fearing that Alexander would destroy the city, went out to meet him before he arrived at the city. The narrative describes how Alexander, upon seeing the High Priest, dismounted and bowed to him. (Alexander rarely, if ever, bowed to anyone). In Josephus's account, when asked by his general, Parmerio, to explain his actions, Alexander answered, "I did not bow before him, but before that God who has honored him with the high Priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very apparel."


As tribute to his benign conquest, the Sages decreed that the Jewish firstborn of that time be named Alexander -- which remains a Jewish name to this very day.

Alexander interpreted the vision of the High Priest as a good omen and thus spared Jerusalem, peacefully absorbing the Land of Israel into his growing empire. As tribute to his benign conquest, the Sages decreed that the Jewish firstborn of that time be named Alexander -- which remains a Jewish name to this very day. And the date of their encounter, the 25th of Tevet, was declared a minor holiday.

This kind of surprised me 'cause i hadn't heard about Alexander honouring Yahweh (or from what i got, it seems YHWH sent helped him out), but was this common among ancient Greeks when they encountered new gods, like would they honour them, or was Alexander and YHWH a special case or something, are there any other examples of things like this happening?.

Anyway, hope that made some sense, and thanks for any help you can give me :).

[Arion]

I was actually reading something about this yesterday in a book I just bought. It was saying that the Greeks generally were accepting of the gods of other cultures because they equated foreign gods with their own gods, who were called different names if only because they spoke different languages. They accepted other faiths because to them, they were worshipping the same gods under different names.

I kind of agree to a certain extent, I don't see why each culture should have its own seperate group of gods co-existing in the universe with everyone else's gods, it just seems a little crowded and chaotic. I think there may be plenty of deities who are worshipped under different names in many cultures, and there are probably some that are unique, as well.

I don't see it as being a universal "pantheon" that manifests differently culture by culture. I think pantheon structure is a human invention, and the gods aren't bound by such roles. The gods just are, but humans apply a lot of characteristics to them to form some sort of structure to fit into the cultural beliefs. It doesn't seem to be soft polytheism to me, since the gods are still considred real, distinct individuals, there are just less of them since they are recognized as the same beings with different names, not aspects or archetypes, which is the typical soft polytheistic philosophy.

The Greeks and Egyptians associated their gods with each other's (Thoth=Hermes, Amun=Zeus, Hathor=Aphrodite, Bast=Artemis, Osiris=Dionysos, and so on), not to mention the Romans, who completely absorbed the Greek deities into their own. I think there were also a lot of Celtic deities the Greeks equated with their own too. The extreme hard polytheism which sees every culture's gods as different from the next, strikes me as a fairly modern idea (not that there's anything wrong with it). I'm not sure the ancients would have agreed that the gods are so limited by cultural and geographical boundries.

[Theres]

i don't think that Alexander (or the entire Hellenistic age, for that matter) should be seen as typical of 'Ancient Greece'.

[David19]

I was actually reading something about this yesterday in a book I just bought. It was saying that the Greeks generally were accepting of the gods of other cultures because they equated foreign gods with their own gods, who were called different names if only because they spoke different languages. They accepted other faiths because to them, they were worshipping the same gods under different names.

I kind of agree to a certain extent, I don't see why each culture should have its own seperate group of gods co-existing in the universe with everyone else's gods, it just seems a little crowded and chaotic. I think there may be plenty of deities who are worshipped under different names in many cultures, and there are probably some that are unique, as well.

I don't see it as being a universal "pantheon" that manifests differently culture by culture. I think pantheon structure is a human invention, and the gods aren't bound by such roles. The gods just are, but humans apply a lot of characteristics to them to form some sort of structure to fit into the cultural beliefs. It doesn't seem to be soft polytheism to me, since the gods are still considred real, distinct individuals, there are just less of them since they are recognized as the same beings with different names, not aspects or archetypes, which is the typical soft polytheistic philosophy.

Thanks for that, although i think that's where we differ in theology, as i don't think that the same gods manifest are worshipped by different peoples, there may be some gods that are (for example, the Roman and Greek deities, maybe?), and the Akkadian and Sumerian gods are the same (but we know this 'cause the Sumerians knew the Akkadian(sp?) gods were the same as the Sumerian gods).

I agree that the gods aren't defined by 'roles', i see them as well-rounded individuals, as in Aphrodite isn't just a 'love' god, Zeus isn't just a 'thunder' or 'storm' god, etc, i see them as having different interests, maybe they specialise in certain areas, but they can do most things (and i think in ancient Greece, this is how they were seen too, i think, a worshipper of Zeus could pray to him for love or victory in war, etc?).

I don't think humans put their personalities onto the gods, most of the time anyway, i think the 'myths', as well as personal gnosis, give us a way of knowing what they're like, e.g. i think Apollo really is bi or gay, i think Artemis might prefer woman, Zeus likes getting around, Yahweh is a jealous god, etc.


The Greeks and Egyptians associated their gods with each other's (Thoth=Hermes, Amun=Zeus, Hathor=Aphrodite, Bast=Artemis, Osiris=Dionysos, and so on), not to mention the Romans, who completely absorbed the Greek deities into their own. I think there were also a lot of Celtic deities the Greeks equated with their own too. The extreme hard polytheism which sees every culture's gods as different from the next, strikes me as a fairly modern idea (not that there's anything wrong with it). I'm not sure the ancients would have agreed that the gods are so limited by cultural and geographical boundries.

I've heard that when the Romans came into contact with the Egyptians and adopted their gods, e.g. the Cult of Isis, it wasn't really the same Isis Cult as what the Egyptians were a part of, it was more seen as exotic and new, kind of like the Kabalah Centre in the U.S., that all the celebrities are a part of, it's not the real Jewish Kabalah, 'cause that can only be taught (i think the real one is actually part of the Jewish mystery tradition).

I don't think seeing all gods as individuals is a modern belief, since it does go back to ancient times (really ancient), for example, the Sumerians saw their gods as seperate to others, they could respect the gods of others, but they weren't all the same, and to the Aztecs, the gods were all individuals (in fact, to the Aztecs, having the gods as individuals was healthy for the universe/multiverse - they saw the continuous cycling of powers and gods where different gods ruled different eras and the conflicts between them as not letting the universe/multiverse stagnate).

This site (http://www.amoxtli.org/cuezali/universe.html), by an Aztec recon, explains it better than me, though:


Conflict is seen as being of great importance to the universe; the conflicts between various deities and powers keep the universe in motion. Certain gods conflicted with each other often, but rather than seeing this in the black and white view of good vs. evil, the Aztecs saw these as necessary clashes between deities, and accepted it as something the gods simply do. Rather than perfection being seen as a continuous balance between all powers in all things, a cycling between unique powers was deemed healthy and necessary. It was believed that continuous and even balance would result in the stagnation of the universe; without the cycling of powers, the Ollin (motion principle) of the universe would be lost. And so, a healthy universal equilibrium was instead found by separate independent powers exerting their forces at different times, their cycling ensuring that these powers functioned to equal each other out while still keeping up the conflict necessary to the universe. This is an important aspect of both the Tonalpohualli and the Five Suns; where different deities hold more or less sway over the world at different times, making sure that all powers have their moment of influence.

[David19]

i don't think that Alexander (or the entire Hellenistic age, for that matter) should be seen as typical of 'Ancient Greece'.

Thanks, i think i remember reading that ancient Greece wasn't really a country, but more made up of city states (and that even the word Greece or Greeks, only became famous because the first tribe that the Romans encountered were called the Greeks or something?).

Although did Alexander unite the city states or was it still seperate 'cause i've heard (it also says in the site i linked too) that he created the largest empire of the time.

Also, does anyone know exactly what this relationship between Yahweh and Alexander was?.

[Theres]

apples and oranges, really.
as far as we can tell the Greeks invented democracy, and the city-states ('demes') were the visible result (or perhaps the cause?).

however this system was already beginning to decline by Alexander's time. after Alexander the Greek world was much larger, but also much different. instead of many independent and democratic city-states you had large monarchies each ruled over by one of Alexander's generals. so Alexander didn't really "unite the city states" any more than Hitler united Europe.

[Arion]

Thanks for that, although i think that's where we differ in theology, as i don't think that the same gods manifest are worshipped by different peoples, there may be some gods that are (for example, the Roman and Greek deities, maybe?), and the Akkadian and Sumerian gods are the same (but we know this 'cause the Sumerians knew the Akkadian(sp?) gods were the same as the Sumerian gods).
I don't know about Roman and Greek deities being the same. I refuse to believe Venus is the same as Aphrodite, since Venus was a very minor goddess until the Romans absorbed Greek religion into their own and gave Venus Aphrodite's attributes. There are goddesses I don't mind being equated to APhrodite though, like Innana, Ishtar and Astarte, who are basically the same goddess anyway, and Aphrodite is pretty much a Hellenized version of her/them. They even share a few myths, although those too have been Hellenized to fit into Greek culture (the Adonis myth). I don't have a problem with viewing Innana/Ishtar/Astarte and Aphrodite as the same goddess, since they probably started out that way. A new name in a new culture doesn't autmomatically result in a new goddess.


I don't think humans put their personalities onto the gods, most of the time anyway, i think the 'myths', as well as personal gnosis, give us a way of knowing what they're like, e.g. i think Apollo really is bi or gay, i think Artemis might prefer woman, Zeus likes getting around, Yahweh is a jealous god, etc.
I don't know about Apollo being gay or bi, I don't think gods really have sexual orientations. Zeus, Apollon, and Dionysus all have myths in which they have affairs with men, yet also they sleep with women too. I think the gods are pansexual, possessing all sexual characterstics.


I don't think seeing all gods as individuals is a modern belief, since it does go back to ancient times (really ancient), for example, the Sumerians saw their gods as seperate to others, they could respect the gods of others, but they weren't all the same, and to the Aztecs, the gods were all individuals (in fact, to the Aztecs, having the gods as individuals was healthy for the universe/multiverse - they saw the continuous cycling of powers and gods where different gods ruled different eras and the conflicts between them as not letting the universe/multiverse stagnate).

Well the gods can still be individuals even though they might be equated with gods from other cultures. There are hundreds of millions of gods out there (even in just one religion) and if every god from every culture exists simultaneaously, we're talking about a lot of gods. Personally, I'm not sure one way or the other. I just try and focus on the gods I honour and try not to concern myself with figuring it all out. It doesn't really matter if my gods are different or the same as someone else's. It's too daunting for my little brain 8O

[Theres]

I don't know about Apollo being gay or bi, I don't think gods really have sexual orientations. Zeus, Apollon, and Dionysus all have myths in which they have affairs with men, yet also they sleep with women too. I think the gods are pansexual, possessing all sexual characterstics.
hallelujah!
i agree that the gods are above such petty distinctions... WAY above. They do what they will and we shouldn't confine Them for that (imo).

[David19]

I don't know about Roman and Greek deities being the same. I refuse to believe Venus is the same as Aphrodite, since Venus was a very minor goddess until the Romans absorbed Greek religion into their own and gave Venus Aphrodite's attributes. There are goddesses I don't mind being equated to APhrodite though, like Innana, Ishtar and Astarte, who are basically the same goddess anyway, and Aphrodite is pretty much a Hellenized version of her/them. They even share a few myths, although those too have been Hellenized to fit into Greek culture (the Adonis myth). I don't have a problem with viewing Innana/Ishtar/Astarte and Aphrodite as the same goddess, since they probably started out that way. A new name in a new culture doesn't autmomatically result in a new goddess.

I don't think Inanna is the same as Aphrodite (in fact, i've read Ishtar isn't the same as Inanna, as Ishtar is a bit more warlike, i think, and the Babylonian and Sumerian religions are very different in some ways).

I've read that Athene and Inanna (or possibly Ishtar?) may share common origins, though.


I don't know about Apollo being gay or bi, I don't think gods really have sexual orientations. Zeus, Apollon, and Dionysus all have myths in which they have affairs with men, yet also they sleep with women too. I think the gods are pansexual, possessing all sexual characterstics.

I think that too, i don't think they can be defined, but i do think the gods will sleep with who they want, and i do think that some gods may prefer men (sexually, anyway) or women, etc.


Well the gods can still be individuals even though they might be equated with gods from other cultures. There are hundreds of millions of gods out there (even in just one religion) and if every god from every culture exists simultaneaously, we're talking about a lot of gods. Personally, I'm not sure one way or the other. I just try and focus on the gods I honour and try not to concern myself with figuring it all out. It doesn't really matter if my gods are different or the same as someone else's. It's too daunting for my little brain 8O

To me, i see it this way, there are many, many gods, some of which take an interest in us or our realm/plane, some may have just forgotten us or left us for some reason, and that just like there are billions of humans, there are billions of gods.

Think of in Hinduism, i think there are 33,000 gods, and at it's height, the Roman empire swelled to 30,000 deities or something (some minor, some major).

[Arion]

I don't think Inanna is the same as Aphrodite (in fact, i've read Ishtar isn't the same as Inanna, as Ishtar is a bit more warlike, i think, and the Babylonian and Sumerian religions are very different in some ways).

Aha! The religions are different, therefore, their perspective on what may be the same goddess may be a little skewed. EVERY source has said Innana and Ishtar are the same goddess. I think Innana came first (worshiped by the Babylonians? my history is rusty) and then as Sumerians ruled over Mesopotamia, they called her Ishtar. She/they are a goddess of sexual passion and war, unline Athena who was a virgin, but did have the war aspect. Aphrodite was worshiped as a war goddess is Sparta, I believe, where she had the epithet "Areia" (of Ares, warlike). Her sexual passion aspects are well-known, of course :p Ishtar/Inanna/Aphrodite seem exactly the same to me, but I guess it's just my opinion.

[Fiamma]

I was actually reading something about this yesterday in a book I just bought. It was saying that the Greeks generally were accepting of the gods of other cultures because they equated foreign gods with their own gods, who were called different names if only because they spoke different languages. They accepted other faiths because to them, they were worshipping the same gods under different names.

I kind of agree to a certain extent, I don't see why each culture should have its own seperate group of gods co-existing in the universe with everyone else's gods, it just seems a little crowded and chaotic. I think there may be plenty of deities who are worshipped under different names in many cultures, and there are probably some that are unique, as well.

I don't see it as being a universal "pantheon" that manifests differently culture by culture. I think pantheon structure is a human invention, and the gods aren't bound by such roles. The gods just are, but humans apply a lot of characteristics to them to form some sort of structure to fit into the cultural beliefs. It doesn't seem to be soft polytheism to me, since the gods are still considred real, distinct individuals, there are just less of them since they are recognized as the same beings with different names, not aspects or archetypes, which is the typical soft polytheistic philosophy.

The Greeks and Egyptians associated their gods with each other's (Thoth=Hermes, Amun=Zeus, Hathor=Aphrodite, Bast=Artemis, Osiris=Dionysos, and so on), not to mention the Romans, who completely absorbed the Greek deities into their own. I think there were also a lot of Celtic deities the Greeks equated with their own too. The extreme hard polytheism which sees every culture's gods as different from the next, strikes me as a fairly modern idea (not that there's anything wrong with it). I'm not sure the ancients would have agreed that the gods are so limited by cultural and geographical boundries.


I took weekend lecture a class at Johns Hopkins a few weeks ago, and what the professor (Maurice Soltes of Georgetown, if anyone is interested in knowing) told us was the the Greeks didn't see the gods of other cultures as being the same gods with a different name due to language, but that they saw the gods of other cultures as equivalent deities...Diana is the Artemis of the Romans, Mercury is the Hermes of the Romans etc.

[David19]

I took weekend lecture a class at Johns Hopkins a few weeks ago, and what the professor (Maurice Soltes of Georgetown, if anyone is interested in knowing) told us was the the Greeks didn't see the gods of other cultures as being the same gods with a different name due to language, but that they saw the gods of other cultures as equivalent deities...Diana is the Artemis of the Romans, Mercury is the Hermes of the Romans etc.

So, if i'm understanding right, they would have seen Diana and Artemis as different deities, but fufilling the same function for another particular people, which i think makes sense.

[David19]

Aha! The religions are different, therefore, their perspective on what may be the same goddess may be a little skewed. EVERY source has said Innana and Ishtar are the same goddess. I think Innana came first (worshiped by the Babylonians? my history is rusty) and then as Sumerians ruled over Mesopotamia, they called her Ishtar. She/they are a goddess of sexual passion and war, unline Athena who was a virgin, but did have the war aspect. Aphrodite was worshiped as a war goddess is Sparta, I believe, where she had the epithet "Areia" (of Ares, warlike). Her sexual passion aspects are well-known, of course :p Ishtar/Inanna/Aphrodite seem exactly the same to me, but I guess it's just my opinion.

The Sumerians came before Babylonia, Inanna was the Sumerian name and Ishtar is what the Babylonian's called her (i recently got corrected about that, i was confusing Ishtar/Inanna with the Islamic Ishtar, who from what i've been told, is a different god).

I think Fiamma may be right, when she said about the gods being seperate but fufiling the same function for other people.

I don't think Inana and Aphrodite are the same though 'cause, i think Inanna could also be a little power hungry (when she descended to the Sumerian underworld, i think, from what i understand, it was to gain more power for herself).

Plus, a lot of her lovers end up dead.

[Arion]

The Sumerians came before Babylonia, Inanna was the Sumerian name and Ishtar is what the Babylonian's called her (i recently got corrected about that, i was confusing Ishtar/Inanna with the Islamic Ishtar, who from what i've been told, is a different god).

I think Fiamma may be right, when she said about the gods being seperate but fufiling the same function for other people.

I don't think Inana and Aphrodite are the same though 'cause, i think Inanna could also be a little power hungry (when she descended to the Sumerian underworld, i think, from what i understand, it was to gain more power for herself).

Plus, a lot of her lovers end up dead.

Well it depends if you think minor differences in mythology make for a whole new being in each religion, even though they embody the same concept.

[ModernKnight]

I took weekend lecture a class at Johns Hopkins a few weeks ago, and what the professor (Maurice Soltes of Georgetown, if anyone is interested in knowing) told us was the the Greeks didn't see the gods of other cultures as being the same gods with a different name due to language, but that they saw the gods of other cultures as equivalent deities...Diana is the Artemis of the Romans, Mercury is the Hermes of the Romans etc.

If you want to know what the ancient Greeks believed, why not look to what the ancient Greeks said about it?


Now the men of Thebes and those who after their example abstain from sheep, say that this custom was established among them for the cause which follows:--Heracles (they say) had an earnest desire to see Zeus, and Zeus did not desire to be seen of him; and at last when Heracles was urgent in entreaty Zeus contrived this device, that is to say, he flayed a ram and held in front of him the head of the ram which he had cut off, and he put on over him the fleece and then showed himself to him. Hence the Egyptians make the image of Zeus with the face of a ram; and the Ammonians do so also after their example, being settlers both from the Egyptians and from the Ethiopians, and using a language which is a medley of both tongues: and in my opinion it is from this god that the Egyptians call Zeus /Amun/.


they [the Persians] do not account the gods to be in the likeness of men, as do the Hellenes. But it is their wont to perform sacrifices to Zeus going up to the most lofty of the mountains, and the whole circle of the heavens they call Zeus: and they sacrifice to the Sun and the Moon and the Earth, to Fire and to Water and to the Winds: these are the only gods to whom they have sacrificed ever from the first; but they have learnt also to sacrifice to Aphrodite Urania, having learnt it both from the Assyrians and the Arabians; and the Assyrians call Aphrodite Mylitta, the Arabians Alitta,and the Persians Mitra.the Assyrians call Aphrodite Mylitta, the Arabians Alitta, and the Persians Mitra.


There is moreover in the temple at Babylon another cell below, wherein is a great image of Zeus sitting, made of gold

Herodotus believed that they were all the same gods going by different names.

[Arion]

If you want to know what the ancient Greeks believed, why not look to what the ancient Greeks said about it?

Herodotus believed that they were all the same gods going by different names.

Thank you, i guess I'm not crazy after all. :lol:

[David19]

If you want to know what the ancient Greeks believed, why not look to what the ancient Greeks said about it?







Herodotus believed that they were all the same gods going by different names.

But, weren't the Greeks, at the time, conquering the Middle East, so can we really take their words for it, that the Arabs, Persians, etc were worshipping the same gods.

Also, that is only one Greek philosopher, and as far as i know, there were many different views about in ancient 'Greece' about the nature of deities.

I like this article (http://www.winterscapes.com/sannion/syncretism.htm) on Sannion's Sanctuary (http://www.winterscapes.com/sannion/), which says:


Take the creation of a syncretic deity such as Serapis. Serapis has elements of the Egyptian gods Asar and Hapi, as well as the Greek Zeus, Haides, Asklepios, and Helios. Serapis is not simply Asar or Zeus under a different name - he has become something else entirely, which must be understood on his own terms, as his own being. And so must all successful syncreticisms

This makes sense, i just can't relate as to why there would be a limited number of deities, it just makes more sense for there to be a lot of different deities, for example, our world is incredibly diverse, which is one of the great things about humans, why can't it be the same for gods?.

[Theres]

But, weren't the Greeks, at the time, conquering the Middle East, so can we really take their words for it, that the Arabs, Persians, etc were worshipping the same gods.
the Greeks weren't conquering anybody. they were actively colonizing the western coast of Anatolia prior to Herodotus, and spent quite some time and expense defending the homeland from Persian invasions, but most of that was prior to Herodotus, who lived more than 100 years before Alexander (whose conquests i'm assuming you were refering to).


Also, that is only one Greek philosopher, and as far as i know, there were many different views about in ancient 'Greece' about the nature of deities.
Herodotus was an historian, not a philosopher, and much of his 'histories' seem quite speculative.

the Serapis example stands rather alone, as Sarapis was actually a 'created' god who didn't exist in Greece OR Egypt until the Hellenistic age. Mikalson (Ancient Greek Religion) has a good example of how this cult was created for political expediancy during the reign of Ptolemy (i forget which one) well after Alexander's death.

[ModernKnight]

Herodotus was an historian, not a philosopher, and much of his 'histories' seem quite speculative.

He wasn't a historian in the modern sense of the term. The Greek word "Historia" is more closely translated as "inquiries". Although he did record the histories of many people, he also recorded current beliefs and practices. He claims to have travelled widely and recorded many tales told to him along the way. Some of his tales, such as his account of mummification, have been verified archeologically. Regardless of which accounts are true or not, however, we can be reasonably sure that he accurately represented his own perspective on other culture's religions.

[Theres]

i'll agree that he opened up many interesting discussions, and for that we can be grateful. how accurate his accounts were is debatable, but that might not matter as much as the fact that he brought them to the table.

i do think 'Opinions' might have been a better title though.