Many Faces of Zeus!!!

[smittysmitty]

Zeus, Zeus the Saviour, Olympian Zeus, Zeus, the Lord of safe landings, Zeus Herceius, Zeus the King.Seems to be a Zeus for all occassions, anyone with classical mythology training know why so many faces to Zeus. Or are they seperate enteties?Many thanks to who ever may respond.
Cheers!

[marcus]

Hi Smitty,They certainly weren't separate entities, or at least not in the way that they were, say, *different* gods. But because of the various strands of mythology etc. each god could take on various specific roles; or it could happen because of particular attributes associated with a cult centre. It did mean that, depending on the circumstances, one might sacrifice to one god in particular, whichever was your patron deity - so you might sacrifice to Poseidon for a safe crossing of the Hellespont, but when you landed you sacrificed to Zeus...So Zeus the saviour, Zeus of safe landings etc. etc. were all aspects of the same god.All the bestMarcus

[S]

Greetings!
Exactly, Marcus. Even today, most religions attribute many "names" to their deities, even the primary one,yet they are referencing one particular god.
This led to some confusion regarding understanding pagan religions in the ancient world, because some deities that had multiple names/aspects/attributes were thought to be multiple gods or goddesses when in reality they were simply different aspects of a single goddess or god.
Regards,
Sikander

[smittysmitty]

Hi Marcus & S,
I was just reading about Zeus having over 150 epithets, so I guess he was representaive of whatever you wanted him to be, not unlike our current 'almighty'. So presumably did the remaining 11 deities. I guess there had to be some aspects they couldn't represent due to it encraoching on some other gods turf ! ( figure of speech).Is this what also made it easier for ATG to identify foreign gods as his own? i.e a God sacrificed to by foreigners in order that they may have a 'safe landing', was identical to his. ( lol, sorry bout that, being a bit cheeky!)Interesting stuff! I'll have to delve into it a bit more I think.Cheers!

[S]

Greetings!
Yes, not having a system that claims there is, can only be and will always be only one, "true" god makes it easier for a person to accept another person's god, or to see another person's god as simply a different aspect of one's own, accept that your god might be called by another name elsewhere, or accept that the way a god is worshipped may differ place to place. And that could, in many cases, make it easier
to maintain control over a land if a person allowed the inhabitants their own gods, by their own names, or by blending names of gods to create a "connection"- insisting that a people change to worship the god of the conquerors choice seems rife with problems,since religion and strong emotion often seem to be tied together.
Which is not, of course, to say that Alexander could not or did not use the gods to further his own cause... a fairly typical human response
Regards,
Sikander

[marcus]

Absolutely! I think you're quite right about the business of encroaching on another god's turf (although they might not have put it that way themselves!) - and the gods being as jealous as they were, I imagine this was a real issue.And I reckon you're right about it making syncretism more easy - for example, Arrian has quite a long digression about how the Tyrian Herakles was different from the Greek Herakles... but obviously there were enough similarities in the cults for Alexander to accept the Tyrian god (which one was it? Baal?) as Herakles.It is indeed a very interesting subject. I think I might have to do some more reading on that myself.All the bestMarcus

[smittysmitty]

thanks again for your feedback:)
Then is that to say that when ATG was in India, as Bosworth suggests, Dionysus really wasn't worshipped, rather the gods Inra and Civa?A question to you both! why then do the sources refer to these native deities in hellenistic terms?
I mean to say, they surely were aware of ATG's prediposition with syncretism.
cheers!

[marcus]

Hi Smitty,Basically, yes. Whatever god was worshiped in India, he wasn't called Dionysos; but when the Greeks/Macedonians saw the cult 'trappings', they equated that god with their Dionysos.You see it a lot in Egypt too, of course - and there are specific examples in Herodotus, for instance, where he says things like "the temple of Hephaistos, whom the Egyptians worship as Ptah".As for why they are often given the Greek names by the sources, it's for the same reason (partly); and also partly because if, say, Arrian got some information from Ptolemy, Ptolemy would have written the god's name as Dionysos (or whoever); and, Arrian being Greek, this would have made the most sense.(In Curtius, for eg. there's a long description of the Persian army before Issus, and QC describes the 'chariot of Jupiter', which of course was, to the Persians, the chariot of Ahuramazda).All the bestMarcus(I am interested in all of this, and if I ever get round to doing my MPhil/PhD, this is precisely what I am thinking of doing it on!)

[smittysmitty]

So would it be fair to say then Marcus, that the names of deities are really given by the writer as opposed to what is historically factual. Then presumably we'd have to work out to whom and what purpose the writer was indeed recording this information for!Heading for troubled waters here! lolhmmmm, interesting stuff I reckon!many thanks fro your response :)Cheers!

[marcus]

Exactly. Some are easy to fathom - if Ahuramazda was the 'chief' god for the Persians (I use the term guardedly, because wasn't he the *only* god?), then it would be natural for a Roman writer to think of Him as being Jupiter.It's this very point of yours that I think is so interesting... hence the research I want to do when I have the time and money! :-)All the bestMarcus

[yiannis]

Moreover Marcus, wouldn't you say that because of the legend that Dionysos had made an expedition/campain in India, the Greeks/Macedonians would "expect" to find some traces of their God there?

[marcus]

Indeed, Yiannis, I would. In those circumstances, I suppose it's possible that they might have made a connection with even more tenuous similarities, as well!All the bestMarcus

[smittysmitty]

Hi once again,
I have given this a bit of thought over night. Given the discussion we've had, (now this is not meant to be a contraversial statement, or relate to contemporary arguments), if the Makedones were not Hellenes, there's a distinct possibility we may not pick this up through the sources due to their perception of the gods. Would I be right in alluding to that proposition?It may be added that Ptolemy, himself a Makedone was one of those primary sources. However 1: he may not have commented on matters of religion. ( I haven't reviewed any of the sources to qualify that! ) 2: He was writing with an audience in mind!(possilbly)interesting that it opens doors for exploration!
just my thoughts Cheers!

[yiannis]

So (assuming that the Makedones were not Hellenes) you point out, that since the historians were mainly Greeks, they were writing of their own perceptions, while the Macedonians weren't very concerned about this religion issue?
Or do you mean that it is not visible that they weren't Hellenes because they believed to the same gods as the Greeks so they tend to mix with them?I'm afraid that I'm not quite following your syllogism (It an interesting one though).

[smittysmitty]

Hi Yiannis,
I hope not to offend, only to speculate on one matter of the Makedones and their identity. Their religion.What I am alluding to, is that perhaps the Makedones, may also have had their own gods, but due to the sources usage of syncretism, have identifed their gods also as being Hellenic. Please don't interpret this as an anti-Greek statement, but I offer it up purely on an academic level of questioning. I may be a million miles off the target, but makes for interesting conversation
just my thoughts.
cheers!