Talk:Cronus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Cronus, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
High This article has been rated as a High priority article
Mythology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] See also

How come is the man lion of hindu myth related to this corvine deity of grecolatin myth?

Agreed. I think this link should be removed as it is at best irrelevant and at worse confusing. I myself followed it to get more insight on Cronos, and instead have landed on a page for a completely different mythology, with no reason for there to be any link between them. I am going to delete it in an indeterminant amount of time unless a reason for it isn't produced. --Smoore 500 13:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
All I can think of is that maybe someone thought the illustration looked vaguely like a lion. I see no justification for the link either. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did Cronus overthrow Oceanus? Or Uranus? I thought it was Uranus.

The picture is entirely inappropriate. I've never heard of Cronus being depicted in this manner, and googling reveals a plethora of images which look very unlike it. Do you have a source for him being a malevolent, hooded, lithe, beardless man of indeterminate age with a fiery scythe? Placing this image here makes it appear as though that was how he was depicted in ancient Greece and is misleading, even if there are a few exceptions, because that was not how he was depicted. Tuf-Kat 04:24, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think that cronus was just defening his throne and is thought of as a carnavour though he swallowed them whole and when they were thrown up they were still alive the pics i have seen googling are misleading. 1/25/06 This sketch looks really silly. And besides, it's overlaying the text. RickK 04:27, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It was not overlaying text. Someone messed with the image and caused that problem.

It is not inappropriate. It is not vulgar, sexually demonstrative, and depicts no graphic representation of violence. Other users have voiced clear support of it. The fact thay you have never heard of Cronus being depicted in a certain way is not my problem nor the problem of any Wikipedia users. Most sites only post images of Cronus that fit with other greek reliefs, in which he is a bearded man with a cloak and either a sickle or similar implement. Yet I have often seen pictures of Cronus in which he looks very much as depicted in the illustration I provided. The fact that another user immediately corrected you the last time you suggested that should have been enough. The character was not depicted as molevolent and actually even in the more common depictions of Cronus he had both a sickle or scythe and was hooded.

And contrary to what the original author is suggesting Cronus (Saturn) was associated with time by many Greek authors who used the character. Some Greek authors chose to differentiate Cronus into two distinct identities, but most did not.


Gee. I see a lot of unattributed talk here. Good thing I ignore unattributed text... - UtherSRG 19:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why? It's not hard to figure out who wrote it... even if you are being sarcastic. ehh I dunno. Evil saltine 19:48, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, it was sarcasm. I read it all and decided to ignore it anyway. I didn't see anything worth commenting on. The image is incorrect for use (as are the other two images the 'unknown' author is trying to add to African Grey Parrot and Bigfoot. They are all obviously original creations. The one on this article is the worst of the lot based upon the dialogue. There are plenty of other Bigfoot images that are in the public domain that could be used on that article, and there is already a photo on the parrot article. - UtherSRG 19:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Lizard King, this is an encyclopedia. As such, we must present information on Cronus in a complete fashion. I am not an expert on Greek mythology, but my understanding has always been that Cronus and Chronos are two different concepts that have been conflated in relatively recent times due to the linguistic similarities. If you do not believe this is true, please cite some scholarly source so that the information can be presented in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policies.
In addition, all that I have ever read about Cronus claimed he was an old, rather thickly built, clearly human male with a flowing beard, regal demeanor and a cloak and scythe. I have occasionally seen him hooded, though his face is always clearly visible and, as a matter, of fact, I believe his cloak does not cover his expansive barrel-chest. Can you cite a scholarly source that describes him as any of the following:
  • Demonic or malevolent in appearance, and seemingly non-human
  • Thin to the point of appearing almost skeletal
  • Hooded so that the face is obscured
  • Without a long, flowing beard
  • Carrying a fiery scythe
It is not inappropriate. It is not vulgar, sexually demonstrative, and depicts no graphic representation of violence. There are plenty of images that would be inappropriate for this article that are not vulgar, sexual or violent. Images of John Lennon playing the piano, for example, or of the Pyramids at Giza, or of Santa Claus. Tuf-Kat 20:35, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
Other users have voiced clear support of it. PMC said he liked the sketch -- as do I. It's quite a nice drawing, but that does not make it an informative likeness of Cronus. PMC's support does not make it a non-issue. Tuf-Kat
The fact thay you have never heard of Cronus being depicted in a certain way is not my problem nor the problem of any Wikipedia users. Yes it is. We work on consensus at Wikipedia. As a result, you must be willing to justify your edits or have them removed. It is a problem for other users as well because they will assume that a picture of Cronus in an article on Cronus depicts Cronus as he was normally depicted. Tuf-Kat
Most sites only post images of Cronus that fit with other greek reliefs, in which he is a bearded man with a cloak and either a sickle or similar implement. Yet I have often seen pictures of Cronus in which he looks very much as depicted in the illustration I provided. To be frank, I do not believe you have ever seen Cronus depicted as you drew him. Feel free to prove me wrong. Tuf-Kat
The fact that another user immediately corrected you the last time you suggested that should have been enough. I think you misread PMC's comment. Even if he was extremely vocal in his support for the drawing, sources need to be cited as I have done with the google link above. Tuf-Kat
The character was not depicted as molevolent and actually even in the more common depictions of Cronus he had both a sickle or scythe and was hooded I agree wholeheartedly that he was not depicted as malevolent in ancient Greece. I also agree that he usually carried a sickle or a scythe and that he was sometimes hooded. Tuf-Kat

P.S. Please sign your posts using three tildes (~~~) or four to place the date and time after your name, as in Tuf-Kat 20:35, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC).

1) The african grey parrot was added because the picture already there did not depict a clear profile of the bird.

This is the talk page for Cronus. Take it to Talk:African Grey Parrot. Tuf-Kat

2) The image of cronus was removed and replaced with an actual greek relief of cronus and you again removed it saying that it was a homemade sketch.

I certainly didn't, and don't know if someone else did. My concern is now the image's copyright status. The issue of sketches, drawings or photographs of public domain resources has always confused me, but I believe copyright still applies. Tuf-Kat

3) The image of bigfoot was absolutely appropriate and it obvious that you are going out of your way to deface anything I touch on here merely as a personal attack. I contacted other wikipedia users about the sasquatch image and a few changed it back for me only to have you remove it again.

I assume you are talking to Uther here. In any case, please take it to Talk:Bigfoot. Tuf-Kat

So, I will compromise thus, I will leave the image of cronus and the parrot out, as there are arguably reasons to leave them out. However, the bigfoot image is hurting no one and is appreciated by many Wikipedia users who will only be robbed of a pleasurable experience by your removing it.

Thank you.

The three images are unrelated. Please discuss the remaining issue at Talk:Bigfoot. Tuf-Kat 21:19, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)


Please learn to sign your posts as instructed by TUF-KAT above. To continue to make posts unattributed indicates you do not wish to be a conscientuous member of Wikipedia.
To address your points:
1. A better fix would be to find a clear image of an African Grey Parrot and replace the one that exists. An unclear image and a sketch are inferior to one clear image. Further discussion of this should be taken to talk:African_Grey_Parrot
2. I apologize for removing the Greek image from Cronus. At that point I was simply working at keeping your very poor representation of Cronus off of the article. As you can see, I've moved the image to the top and given it a label.
3. The image of bigfoot *is* unacceptable. I've replaced it with an image from the Patterson-Gimlin film. Further discussion of this should be taken to talk:bigfoot
You seem to not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not to provide users with a pleasurable experience. It is an online encyclopedia an is meant to be informative, not entertaining. - UtherSRG 21:22, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
We've had problems with 65.35.69.180 (to whom UtherSRG is responding) before. See User talk:Michael Rawdon for some previous observations (on 13 December 2003 he added a huge amount of text to Santa Claus simply as a joke). He never signs his posts, either, and is rather hostile in his modification comments (when he bothers to use any). -mhr 22:31, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The "homemade scketch" appears to be an accurate archeological drawing of an actual relief carving which illustrates a Greek story about Rhea handing the stone as a child substitute to Cronus, as described in the article. See [1] and our article text. Jamesday 10:57, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you mean the picture in the article currently, it's not what is being discussed above. (UtherSRG accidentally referred to it as such in the page history during a revert, but he knows it isn't) The original image is at Image:Cronoz2c.jpg. Tuf-Kat 15:38, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks - I was referring to the wrong (current) image, Cronuspc.jpg. Cronoz2c.jpg is interesting. We may need such images drawn by Wikipedia contributors in some cases but for historic articles where we can use images of the period, it's probably better to use them instead of new creative works to illustrate things. I wonder if User:Lizard king would be interested in fulfilling requests for drawn illustrations for articles which need them? Jamesday 03:36, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add the famous painting by Goya of Saturn/Cronus devouring a son? I admit that it involves some violent imagery. (See fr:Cronos and it:Crono.) -- Emsworth 21:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a good image but I don't think the URL is needed in the text, especially since it seems to give an incorect title to the painting. Economy1 10:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

So can we get at least some picture of Cronus? It would be nice as it looks a bit incomplete right now. --Kookoo275 03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saturn separated out from Cronos

Saturn and Cronos were often identified -- incorrectly -- in antiquity. I have moved the Saturn content (which is admittedly incomplete) to its own article, where I discuss the problem with this identification. Macrakis 17:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of Cronus

I read that Cronus means Raven. Granted, the source is not reliable, but does anyone have some information?

Reply to David Latapie 12:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  • The Latin word for Raven is Corvus User:Marten15

[edit] That Which Spilled

The word "blood" is never actually used in the greek myth, and "that which spilled" is translated in some myths to be blood, and others to be sperm (falling from the severed penis). Also, that which was severed, as opposed to testicles. The myth says "Cronus set upon him to castrate him" and "that which was severed" could mean the penis, the testicles, or both. Also, as for Tartarus being Gaia's bowls, this is often construed, but never directly stated outside of Christian representations of the myth to my knowledge.

If we are talking about the creation of Aphrodite blood was not involved but the Furies, Giants, and Meliai were born of the drops of blood falling from Kronos' severed genitals as they were thrown into the sea. Aphrotide rose from "a white foam of god-flesh" that gathered around the floating genitals. --Gordon

[edit]  ?

An earlier version of Cronos, that before worship of Zeus became popular, is considered to be connected to the Semitic deity Ba`al Hammon.

What is this suppose to mean?--Broken 12:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

i have a lovely bunch of coconuts( dodlde )thar thar are sthanding in a row
I think it should probably be removed. People can argue about it all they want, but in the end it shouldn't be there without a credible reference to back it up. You could remove it if you want Broken, otherwise I probably will later when I'm satisfied people have had enough warning (and when/if I can be bothered to go back here). Smoore 500 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cronus isn't Chronus?

Where's the evidence that this is the case? These links suggest they are the same, or at least that one was clearly derived from the the other: [2], [3].

"Khronos was essentially a cosmological version of Kronos who appears in the Orphic cosmogonies. The Orphics later integrated him with Phanes." Nathan J. Yoder 01:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism and ?

I have removed "I was here! " added by 24.106.176.94 in neo-paganism.

He also added "Cronus ate his children so they wouldn't overthrow him." in In popular culture - I don't know if that is correct.

-- Beardo 04:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's correct, even if doesn't sound correct, whatever is in the myth shoud go onto the article! androo123 17:06, 12 September 2007, (EDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Androo123 (talk • contribs)

[edit] A new disambig page

Hi, I have created a new disambig page Cronos (disambiguation), obviously for all the meanings using that particular spelling. So now we have Cronos (disambiguation), Chronos (disambiguation), Kronos, Khronos, Cronus (disambiguation) and Cronos, which redirects here. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 11:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2101 Vandalism

2101

   * The events of the Zero Wing video game take place.


Not Quiete Greek Mythology But Im Not Sure What The Title Should Be To Change It Back

[edit] An earlier version of Cronus ?

The article states:

An earlier version of Cronus, from before worship of Zeus became popular, is considered to be connected to the Semitic deity Ba`al Hammon. The baby-eating myth of Cronos is considered to derive from such early religions, as Ba`al Hammon was sometimes worshiped as Moloch, whose cult involved child sacrifice by burning within a statue of Ba`al Hammon.

The earliest know reference to Cronus is Hesiod. There was very little evidence of this deities' worship in classical times and absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there was an earlier Cronus, from "before worship of Zeus became popular". It is extremely unlikely that Cronus was worshipped or even existed in a time before the cult of Zeus had become established. Just because Cronus is Zeus' father in myth does not mean that Cronus is older that Zeus in fact or cult or worship. Unless there is evidence provided for this pre-Zeus Cronus the above statement should be removed.

It is true that some Greeks identified Cronus with the Phoenician and Carthaginian god Ba'al, but beyond this there is no evidence at all that the two gods were in any way connected.

The Prime Source 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Dale

The statement in question has been tagged for citation for a long long time, and in the absence of any forthcoming, I would say it is somebody's Original Research and would agree with removing it.
Note however, that there is possibly a slight "hint" of some kind of Canaanite connection later on, one that is indeed cited to a primary source, ie., Sanchunathio, although we have him only second-hand, is reputed to have been an ancient Phoenician historian, who specifically connected Cronos and Athena with the founder of Byblos in Phoenicia. Even so, this account does not correlate him with Baal, but rather with "Ilus". Til Eulenspiegel 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop culture

I removed the "Cronos in popular culture" section, as it contained only a single instance, and that being a video game. I'd probably have let it be out of laziness, but it was also full of blatant typos. :) --Starwed 10:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KILL Uranus?

In the article, it says that Gaia gathered the Titans to KILL Uranus, but according to many of the articles I read, Uranus is immortal, I thought the myth was the Gaia planned for Cronus to slash Uranus' neck with the sickle, and once he does so, Uranus feels the pain and just knowing he has been beaten makes him feel defeated (call it whatever you want to call it) and so he hands over the throne to Cronus! It should be changed androo123 16:59, 12 September 2007 (EDT).

[edit] The Phoenician Cronos

User:Til Eulenspiegel - Can you please cite a source for this paragraph as this original source cannot be WP:V. Unless you translated the Praeparatio Evangelica yourself - which would be original research.

The reference I have (Extracts from Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E. H. Gifford (1903)) carried the following translations from ch10 :-


CHAPTER X Theology of the Phoenicians

'And from them is born Epigeius or Autochthon, whom they afterwards called Uranus; so that from him they named the element above us Uranus because of the excellence of its beauty. And he has a sister born of the aforesaid parents, who was called Ge (earth), and from her, he says, because of her beauty, they called the earth by the same name. And their father, the Most High, died in an encounter with wild beasts, and was deified, and his children offered to him libations and sacrifices

'And in the thirty-second year of his power and kingdom Elus, that is Kronos, having waylaid his father Uranus in an inland spot, and got him into his hands, emasculates him near some fountains and rivers. There Uranus was deified: and as he breathed his last, the blood from his wounds dropped into the fountains and into the waters of the rivers, and the spot is pointed out to this day.' 'Kronos also, in going round the world, gives the kingdom of Attica to his own daughter Athena. But on the occurrence of a pestilence and mortality Kronos offers his only begotten son as a whole burnt-offering to his father Uranus, and circumcises himself, compelling his allies also to do the same. And not long after another of his sons by Rhea, named Muth, having died, he deifies him, and the Phoenicians call him Thanatos and Pluto. And after this Kronos gives the city Byblos to the goddess Baaltis, who is also called Dione, and Berytus to Poseidon and to the Cabeiri and Agrotae and Halieis, who also consecrated the remains of Pontus at Berytus.


Dlm4473 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what the problem is.... What Original research? Everything in the article section is already mentioned in the text, and I am using the same translation you have above. Note the part that says "And their father, the Most High, died in an encounter with wild beasts, and was deified, and his children offered to him libations and sacrifices" and then a second time "There Uranus was deified", it also states several times that these were of the race of men, and several times that they were deified and came to be regarded as gods. You may have an abridged version, but the one at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_01_book1.htm hjas the complete one. It clearly describes in the preceding section how ships had been invented by Ousous. There are also additional lines below what you quoted:
  • "'And when Kronos came into the South country he gave all Egypt to the god Tauthus, that it might be his royal dwelling-place. And these things, he says, were recorded first by Suduc's seven sons the Cabeiri, and their eighth brother Asclepius, as the god Tauthus commanded them."

And this sentence, just above what you quoted:

  • "From Misor was born Taautus, who invented the first written alphabet; the Egyptians called him Thoyth, the Alexandrians Thoth, and the Greeks Hermes."

I don't know of any better way to summarize these things than they are now, but calling it Original research or uncited doesn't seem to fit, and at any rate you seem not to know how to properly use templates on an article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)



“I don't get what the problem is....” ? ? ? – no you obviously dont !!

1. Your citation is still incorrect ( Gifford 1903 perhaps ?)

2. “I am using the same translation you have” – i’m glad we agree on something !– as far as i know there is no abridges version.

3. "And their father, the Most High” – please read more carefully and ref – “In their time is born a certain Elioun called "the Most High,"” – He was the father of Epigeius (Uranus) and Ge.

4. “and states ......., he castrated, slew and deified his father Epigeius or Autochthon "whom they afterwards called Uranus"” – WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT ? – I believe it says “Elus, that is Kronos, having waylaid his father Uranus in an inland spot, and got him into his hands, emasculates him near some fountains and rivers.” There is no mention of castration anywhere !

5. "There Uranus was deified" – Correct !! – but it was not an act by Uranus was it ? he was deified the Phoenician people.

6. “It clearly describes in the preceding section . . “ yes it does – in the PRECEDING sections ! - it does not “ further state that after ships were invented, Cronos, visiting the 'inhabitable world'” which implies the invention was during his lifetime, but it was many generations before. This statement either needs to be expanded (accurately) or deleted as irrelevant.

7. “and Egypt to Thoth” again where in the text does it say that? -what it says is “'And when Kronos came into the South country he gave all Egypt to the god Tauthus” - Upon the birth of Tauthus it states “'From Misor was born Taautus, who invented the first written alphabet; the Egyptians called him Thoyth, the Alexandrians Thoth, and the Greeks Hermes.” Please explain to me why you feel the need to refer to him with his Egyptian name – in a section about the Phoenicians ?

8. “and Egypt to Thoth” – Considering Tautus travelled with Cronos – he did not give him Egypt until their return - not at the same time he bequeathed Attica to Athena.

9. Your reference to Misor is confusing and irrelevant !

10. Tauthus is credited with inventing “the first written alphabet”

11. “I don't know of any better way to summarize these things than they are now” - if this is the case why then did you delete the accuratly written section composed by me ?


If you still “don’t get what the problem is” perhaps it is because have taken a piece of text 3740 words long (1195 relating directly to Cronos) and bastardised it into 95 words of nonsensical drivel.


“and at any rate you seem not to know how to properly use templates on an article.” – to this i do apologise, i am new to WP and have a lot to learn, i accept this. – I do however find such a remark just a bit pathetic and childish – Has anyone ever told you to GROW UP ! but . . . as you started it . . . Yeah but at least I can read ! nah nah !

Dlm4473 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your last point - I do apologize, and will definitely have to study the exemplary standard of maturity you have just set.
Turning to one of your other "points" now, #4: "And from them is born Epigeius or Autochthon, whom they afterwards called Uranus". That's a direct quote from the source text. It seems you are splitting some hairs, eg. the difference between "castration" and "emasculated" that seem to be going over my head. Perhaps you are aware of a significant difference between saying "castrated" and "emasculated" and would object to one word being used to paraphrase the other. If this is the case, I do not see any problem with amending the article to read "emasculated" as in the original, instead of "castrated".
  1. 7: Similarly, you seem to object to using the name "Thoth" in the article, even though this even appears in our text as one of the alternative spellings, on grounds that "Taautus" is more representative of the Phoenician form. Again, you have a point, although standard practice on Wikipedia is to go with the actual article name to avoid "redirects", there is luckily a convenient workaround for this called "piping", where we simply add the code [[Thoth|Taautus]], it will still link directly to the desired article, and sometimes we do this to satisfy sticklers for accuracy.
  2. 9: I disagree that the reference to Misor is confusing or irrelevant; it could be significant and interesting for those studying parallels with other names for Egypt. As long as we simply cite what the source says - ie, that Taautus AKA Thoth was the son of Misor - there is no rule that says we have to suppress this significant information because you find it irrelevant.
As we have seen, Eusebius text is quite clear that these were men, nad that they were deified right after their death -- or in the case of Rhea's youngest son, deified (it says) at his birth. You also may have missed this sentence, where he says it yet a third time: Kronos then, whom the Phoenicians call Elus, who was king of the country and subsequently, after his decease, was deified as the star Saturn.
"knowing that of all men under the sun Taautus was the first who thought of the invention of letters, and began the writing of records" similar words are found throughout the document several times; again, saying "he invented writing" is an incorrect paraphrase based on some fine line drawn between "letters" and "writing" seems like a huge nitpick, but if it is a big difference to you, I can see altering "writing" to read "letters" or "written alphabet". However, the extent of the deletions you made I cannot give consensus to, since the word "deified" appears in the original text at least five or six times, and its obvious intended meaning has never been disputed by any source I know of. Since you seem like a mature, reasonable sort of person in your reply, perhaps we could work out a precise wording that would be agreeable to the both of us, eh? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
One more thing, I also don't see anywhere that it says he gave Egypt to Thoth after their return to Byblos, as you claim. On the contrary, it says "And when Kronos came into the South country he gave all Egypt to the god Tauthus, that it might be his royal dwelling-place." It also doesn't specifically say that Thoth accompanied Kronos on his tour "round the world", although I agree this much can be probably be inferred, if he gave it to him as a "dwelling place" and he remained behind to dwell there. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Til - firstly . . . in a calmer tone . . I would welcome the oportunity to work between each other on this - and come to an agreement.

I would however atempt to, provide you with a hopefully more 'reasoned' view of my issues with this paragraph. (as i understand it)

1. Glifford (1903)directly translates Eusebius(260-340 AD), who references the translations of Philo of Byblius (64 - 141 AD) made from the "Phoenition Histroy" written by Sanchuniaton (BETWEEN 2000 + 1339 BC ?) Can we really afford to dilute this text any more with 'harmless' paraphase ? e.g. emasculate = to castrate, yes! but an alternative definition is "To deprive of strength or vigor, weaken" similarly " symbols on Gerzean pottery from circa 4000 BC resemble hieroglyphic writing.Egyptian hieroglyphs - these 'writings' were 2000 years before Tauthus's Alaphabet ! ?

2. Sanchuniathons' Phoenician History is the oldest known non-coded archive of the Western World, not to mention a Theological text of a civilisation - Nobody would dare to paraphase the Bible on WP so why should it be allowed here ?

3. The text 'appears' (to me) to show at least a foundation of both Egyption and Greek ... 'mythology' (dont want to debate semantics) yet it is not recgnised as such

4. Your point on Cronos/Taautus is valid - i apologise - I am but an amature historian, and welcome being pointed (gently) in the right dirrection. My mistake here (I believe) - It is from Egtption myth that Thoth tours the world with Orisis.


5. As far as names go It was my 'impression' that "whom they afterwards called ..." refered to 'they' as the Greeks [an edit by Eusebius or Philo ?]. If this is correct then it would be my belief the use of there correct Phoenician names would be more appropriate - with reference made to the alternatives obviously.

Dlm4473 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Changing 'castrate' to 'emasculate' is no problem, if it means that much to you. As for 'invented writing' vs. 'written alphabet' - The Egyptian mythology holds that it was Thoth who invented hieroglyphs. Probably a variant of Sanchuniathon's story, but we don't give either one historical credence, nor do we try to alter what was written to fit historically known facts. Sanch. seems to be recording the opinion that Tauthus / Thoth was the first to "begin the writing of records", we are only faithfully representing what this indicates the belief was at one time. Mind you, we don't even know for sure if Sanchuniathon was real, let alone how long ago he lived, to be able to estimate anything like a precise date, but since he does mention Hesiod, that would seem to put him more recently than 700 BC.

2. I agree that we should try to be as precise and accurate as possible but short of reproducing the entire passage in extenso the only other option we have is a succinct and accurate summary of the main interesting points involving Cronos.

3. In order to quote any kind of point like this, we would need to attribute it to a published source, since it sounds like an opinion

4. No problem

5. Again if we have no indications or sources to tell us who "they" is, then assuming it is an interpolation referring to Greeks is assuming just a bit too much. But if you look again at all the repeated uses of the word "deified" on that entire page, along with all the other related discussion attributed to Sanch. there, it is rather clearly stated that the society to which the document refers (ie. the early Phoenicians) are depicted as making their own notable inventors into deities (that is declaring them to be objects of worship), usually soon after their deaths. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Sorry was trying to sneek this in on the end of last but as I pressed save, your text came up. anyway this is from chapter 9 "'But with a view to clearness hereafter, and the determination of particulars, it is necessary to state distinctly beforehand that the most ancient of the barbarians, and especially the Phoenicians and Egyptians, from whom the rest of mankind received their traditions, regarded as the greatest gods those who had discovered the necessaries of life, or in some way done good to the nations. Esteeming these as benefactors and authors of many blessings, they worshipped them also as gods after their death This is a direct quote from Philo.

As per your ref to Hesoid - you do realise that it is Philo who is refering to him not San. "Philo having explained these points in his preface, next begins his interpretation of Sanchuniathon by setting forth the theology of the Phoenicians"" Dlm4473 (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just it - the text is not clear what parts were added by Philo, and we just can'tr say for sure, although I believe there has been some conjecture on that question, see the Sanchunaiathon article... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)