Religion

[ahuramazda]

Hello, I am new to this site.My question is not about Alexander directly, but hope someone will be kind enough to repond.My question is, what are the main differences between Greek and Persion religious practices.I read Xenephon's Cyropedia, and found it difficult to see any difference between the two. bye for now.

[ruthaki]

For one thing, the Persians worshipped one God, Ahura-Mazda while the Greeks worshipped a pantheon of various gods. Read up on Zarathustra (Zoroaster).

[amyntoros]

Although I'm no expert, I think it's simplifying it too much to say that the ancient Persians worshipped one god - it's more like one god held supreme over other lesser deities. According to Dr. Oric Basirov in Old Iranian Religion and Zoroastrian Reforms, under the heading of The Principal Elements of the Zoroastroastrian Reforms: "Ahuras and the rest of the old pantheon were maintained, but Ahura Mazdah became the supreme deity with unlimited power over everything good. Seven other abstract deities, the "Amesha Spentas" (bounteous immortals), were now added to the old pantheon; these are the famous heptad, the most important divinities after the Wise Lord."
And Kersi B. Shrof in Zoroastrianism under the Achaemenids says, "The Achaemenian era truly began with the successful rebellion in 558 BC by Cyrus the Great against his father in law Astyages, the ruler of the Medians. Under the Achaemenians, the religion of Zoroaster joined forces with the secular world of the Persian empire. The inscriptions left by the Achaemenians show a religion that through diffusion, adaptation and priestly elaborations developed syncretisticlly i.e. through the combination or reconciliation of differing religious beliefs or practices. The old traditions were creeping back into the religion and due to contact with other religious worlds that were alien to the Iranian traditions (the civilizations of Elam and Mesopotamia), new features were being incorporated. Although the religion of Zoroaster was a rebellion against the pre-existent polytheistic religion, some of the old deities from the mythological and naturalist era were readmitted into the practice of the religion. These were brought in in the form of the Yazatas and recognized as Amesha Spentas. While Ahura Mazda still remained the supreme God, the religion lost its concept of a true monotheism in the real sense. The cult of Anahita and Tiri were reintroduced, the latter becoming associated with the Indo-Iranian Tishtrya, a divinity associated with the bringing of rain." Andrew, if you want to read the articles in full (or many others on the subject) go to the following URL and click on Religion.
http://www.cais-soas.com/Essays.htm

The series of lectures by Dr. Oric Basirove is particularly relevant to your inquiry (you will find similarities to the Greek pantheon), but there is also a wealth of articles on other topics.
Best regards,
Amyntoros

[Efstathios]

Well amyntoros have covered the persian religion.But about the greek one there are various interpretaions.
For example we know that the main god was Zeus.The other gods were lesser similary to the Persian lesser gods.
These lesser gods were once humans that were made gods by zeus.That is the general idea.Of course there are many variations.And if we look carefully at the orphic hymns we can see also the worship and idea of the "one" god represented by Zeus.Socrates also spoke of the "one" God.
Diodorus the Sicelian accounts very well the past of the gods in his book "about the Ethiops,the amazons,the Atlantians and the origins of the first gods". There he states that there were at least 2 Zeus in the pro-cataclysmic world.The first was the creator,the "one", and the second was a human (the one that made the war with the Titans) but after thousands of years in the minds of people and as these events began to fade,these two Zeus became one.So actually Zeus is the combination between these two.
In the same way there were 3 Hercules.
All these according to Diodorus interpretations,but we do not know what his sources were appart from the egyptians.Diodorus visited Egypt to look for proof probably after reading Plato.
So generally the greek religion was simple.One god Zeus, and eleven lesser gods.The idea though of the "one" god was existant.After some time during the roman age the greeks no longer believed strongly as before in the 12 gods of Olympus.Loukianos actually mocks the gods in some of his works. So actually there are similarities to these two religions.But the lesser gods in Persia were somehow weak compairning to the "lesser" gods in greece.The greeks feared the eleven gods in the same way they feared Zeus too.I do not think it was the same in Persia.

[marcus]

"These lesser gods were once humans that were made gods by zeus."Which version of the myths are you referring to? I've never heard that one before - it seems to be ignoring the (well-established) business of Zeus, Hades and Poseidon being brothers, Hera, Demeter (and another one?) being their sisters, etc. etc. etc.I admit that it's an extremely complex set of mythology, with a great number of versions of various tales, but that's the first time I've heard it said that the rest of the gods were apotheosised humans.All the bestMarcus

[amyntoros]

Well, Marcus, there IS a myth about the Greek gods having originally been men, but it isnGÇÖt an ancient Greek myth, itGÇÖs one of early Christian making. And just to keep this on topic, according to various early Christian writings our Alexander was one of the first to learn of this. :-)AUGUSTINE. DE CIV. DEI: BOOK 8. CHAP. 5 "Alexander of Macedon wrote to his mother as communicated to him by Leo, an Egyptian high priest. In this letter not only Picus and Faunus, and AEneas and Romulus or even Hercules, and AEsculapius and Liber, born of Semele, and the twin sons of Tyndareus, or any other mortals who have been deified, but even the principal gods themselves, to whom Cicero, in his Tusculan questions, alludes without mentioning their names, Jupiter, Juno, Saturn, Vulcan, Vesta, and many others whom Varro attempts to identify with the parts or the elements of the world, are shown to have been men."MINUCIUS FELIX: OCTAVIUS, CHAP. XXI. "Alexander the Great, the celebrated Macedonian, wrote in a remarkable document addressed to his mother, that under fear of his power there had been betrayed to him by the priest the secret of the gods having been men: to her he makes Vulcan the original of all, and then the race of Jupiter."Athenagoras of Athens CHAP. XXVIII. "But it is perhaps necessary, in accordance with what has already been adduced, to say a little about their names. Herodotus, then, and Alexander the son of Philip, in his letter to his mother (and each of them is said to have conversed with the priests at Heliopolis, and Memphis, and Thebes), affirm that they learnt from them that the gods had been men."The same story is in St. Cyrprian too under the heading, That the Idols were not gods, Chapter 3. Probably in other works as well, but I just havenGÇÖt found them yet.YouGÇÖve just gotta love how Alexander gets his name into everything! I suspect that the original tale that the above writers used was another offshoot of the Romance. And IGÇÖm thinking that that whole link between Alexander and Alchemy (that he found the original SorcererGÇÖs Stone) had to be tied in with the above story somehow. All the best,Amyntoros

[marcus]

Thanks - I think I had read some of those quotes before (because you'd given them to me), but obviously hadn't read them carefully.Anyway, it doesn't count if it's early Christian mythology ... :-)ATBMarcus

[abm]

Hi Linda and Marcus,it's certainly is genuinely pagan-greek. The idea that the gods originally had been men of extraordinary status was developed by Euhemerus of Messene in the time of Cassander. Unfortunately nothing of his work remains (except for some 'fragments')."In this history E. explains that the gods originally were great kings and benefactors who were consequently worshiped as gods by their grateful subjects. The literary form is that of a journey to a mysterious and utopian island in the Indian Ocean, called Panchaia, where E. claims to have found in the temple of Zeus an inscription that revealed to him the truth about the origins of religious worship."
(from BMCR: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2002/2002-07-21.html)regards,
abm

[amyntoros]

Thanks Alexander for this, however, I'm with Marcus - it still "doesn't count" (not that I'm implying you thought it did)! One wild theory in an early Hellenistic novel, no less, is hardly a true reflection of how the ancient Greeks viewed their gods.I can see why the early Christian writers picked up on this idea, however. In one way it discredits the old gods - now they are only men - and in another it supports one of Christianity's fundamental beliefs.I still like how Alexander gets pulled into this though, adding weight to their convictions. :-)Best regards,Amyntoros

[abm]

Hi Linda,unfortunately I don't know enough about it, but I seriously doubt whether this was just "one wild theory in an early Hellenistic novel". Euhemerus' work was translated into Latin by Ennius in the early second century BC. It was also used by Diodorus in his mythical books. The work was thus probably quite popular in hellenistic times, although, admittedly that does not necessarily mean that the theory itself was also really believed by its readers. I would also not add too much weight to the fact that it's a novel.regards,abm

[marcus]

Very interesting - thanks, Alexander.I think there is also an important distinction to be made between Hellenistic beliefs and Classical beliefs. After all, there was much more scepticism creeping in throughout the late 5th and 4th centuries. Perhaps it all still 'counts', but as the foundation of the Greek religion has to come from Hesiod, Homer, etc., I would argue that what we have in Classical Greek religion is the 'pure' version - and the later novels (as Amyntoros says) the result of too much philosophy :-)However, I'm no expert on Greek religion (or rather, Hellenistic religion - hence my ignorance of your quotation). So am prepared to learn differently ...All the bestMarcus

[abm]

Hi Marcus,you're right about the classical period as the 'pure form', although this purely conventional, of course. But indeed there was less foreign influence and/or philosophy involved in that time (we'd better not start about black athena here). Unfortunately i'm not a specialist on Greek religion either, so the discussion stops here . I think, I'll come back to it one day for the WCD, though.regards,abm

[amyntoros]

Hi Alexander, Ah, donGÇÖt stop the discussion just yet, please! I agree that popularity doesnGÇÖt necessarily mean that the contents were readily believed GÇô I doubt that every reader of the much reproduced Golden Ass of Lucius Apuleius was a devotee of Isis! However, apparently EuhemerusGÇÖ work *did* have a lasting effect - he certainly had many later admirers amongst the Christians, although we have no way of knowing exactly how his theories were viewed by most pagans at the time of first publication. And although Euhemerus theory has parallels in Stoicism GÇô GÇ£For mortal to aid mortal GÇô this is God, and this is the road to eternal gloryGÇ¥ GÇô the school of stoicism also began in Hellenistic times. Funnily enough, IGÇÖm currently reading Jean SeznecGÇÖs The Survival of the Pagan Gods, about how the GÇ£presenceGÇ¥ of the ancient gods survived even in mediaeval times, and how the gods were made acceptable to Christians. The very first chapter begins with Euhemerus, but the name didnGÇÖt register with me until you brought it up. It elaborates upon MarcusGÇÖ comments: GÇ£On the appearance, early in the third century B.C., of the romance by Euhemerus which was destined to exert so lasting an influence, the intellectual climate of the Greco-Roman world was in a state exceptionally favorable to its reception. Philosophical speculation and recent history alike had prepared the way for an understanding of the process by which, in times long past, the gods had been recruited from the ranks of mortal men. . . . . At the same time, the superhuman career of Alexander, and above all his expedition to India GÇô where he became the subject of adoration similar to that which, according to the myth, had once greeted Dionysus there GÇô had suddenly thrown light upon the origin of the gods. For the generations who subsequently witnessed the official deification of the Seleucids and Ptolemies there could be no further doubt: the traditional deities were merely earthly rulers, whom the gratitude or adulation of their subjects had raised to a place in heaven.GÇ¥Continued. . .

[amyntoros]

So according to Seznec we have both Euhemerus and Alexander being in good part responsible for the end of ancient Greek paganism as it was originally understood and practiced GÇô and eventually, thereby, the end of the religion itself! If I follow that reasoning I find particular irony in the case of Cassander who was not only the major player in the termination of the Argead line, but, by his sponsorship of Euhemerus, in the termination of the religion! ThatGÇÖs quite an effect on history for a man who, according to Hegesander, had still not speared a boar by the age of 35 and therefore had to sit upright with his father during meals! I GÇÿm sorry, IGÇÖm sorry - I know how you feel about Cassander and I just couldnGÇÖt resist the dig. :-)All the best,Linda Ann

[abm]

Hi Linda,don't worry, I don't feel anthing about Kassandros: I only think about him . And I still think stories like the one you mentioned are propaganda. It is simply inconceivable that Kassandros would ever have become a general if it had taken him that long to kill a boar. Not a single soldier would have wanted to go to war with him.That said, what struck me most in your post was "the end of religion". Religion certainly changed, but it never ended. Ruler cult really was a genuine form of religion for the hellenistic Greeks and on the other hand there was of course the rise of eastern deities like Isis.regards,abm