Talk:Orphism (religion)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Comments

Why is the article "Orphicism", a word I have never heard before, if "Orphism" is the more usual term? Maestlin 18:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ophicism" is an older, now out-of-date name for Orphism. Thank you, to whoever changed the title of this article to Orphism (religion). Isokrates 04:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dates

I can't see how this makes sense: Its historical roots have been traced back to the 6th century BC. Though distinctively Orphic views and practices are attested as early as Herodotus, Euripides, (5th century BC) and Plato, most of the sources to the teachings and practices of Orphism are late and ambiguous, and some scholars have claimed that Orphism is in fact a construction of a later date. However the recently discovered Derveni papyrus allows Orphic mythology to be dated back to the 4th century BC, and it is probably even older. Other inscriptions found in various parts of the Greek world testify to the early existence of a movement with the same core beliefs that were later associated with the name of Orphism.--2514 07:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Derveni papyrus, though actually written in "probably the last quarter" of the fourth century BCE (Parker, "Early Orphism", p. 488), is a commentary on an Oprhic poem that scholars believe was written around 500BCE. (M.L. West in The Orphic Poems (Oxford, 1983) fixes circa 500 BCE as the date of the Orphic poem that is the subject of the Derveni papyrus commentary (West cited in Parker p. 509 n. 87); and Richard Janko puts it at "about 550-500BCE" ("Socrates the Freethinker" in A Companion to Socrates, eds. Ahbel-Rappe & Kamtekar 2006, p. 49).) According to Kirk, Raven, & Schofield, the Derveni papyrus puts "the Orphic theogony . . . into the fifth century B.C., conceivably even into the sixth. A few of the quoted verses [sc., quoted by the commentator who authored the papyrus] are identical or nearly so with bits of the later compilation, the so-called Orphic Rhapsodies. . . . That does not alter the fact that much of the Rhapsodies is Hellenistic or Graeco-Roman, but it shows that the beginnings of beliefs that can be termed specifically Orphic, and were recorded in sacred verses, were much earlier than [the Hellenistic period]" (The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1983, 2nd edition), pp. 30-31). This all suggests that a distinctively Orphic religion probably existed as early as the sixth century B.C.Isokrates 19:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gem

Hey I'm not the one who removed the image that was just restored. However if we were to vote or debate about it, I'd say remove it because not only is it of dubious authenticity, it is very singular and...rather atypical. Not representative of pre-Christian Orphism. Of all the images this article needs that's not one of them. It's currently just some dumb ass atypical image in an otherwise imageless article. Lisa the Sociopath 05:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're keeping it in the article, it should be in some kind of context. If, say, a reliable source has argued that it's evidence of an Orphic crucifixion myth, we could note that in the main text. As the article stands, it's not clear what the reader is supposed to infer about Orphism from the image. EALacey 11:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I was probably being a bit hasty adding it back, but I figured it was a really interesting item, and it shouldn't just disappear with no more trace than a brief edit comment about "dubious authenticity". I've done a teeny bit of googling on the item, and it clearly predates the 20th century. I haven't figured out what "dubious authenticity" is supposed to mean yet. If it means "almost certainly a modern fake" then it doesn't belong here unless it generated notable debate about connections between Orphism and Christianity. If it merely means "its dating to Late Antiquity is unprovable" then there's a strong case for it remaining in the article in some respect, possibly to illustrate a section about cross-pollination between Orphism and Christianity. We could whip such a section together pretty quickly, I would guess, considering the well-known similarities between Dionysus (the "True Vine", the "Alpha and Omega", etc.) and Jesus. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Enlighten me because I cannot find a crucifixion of Orpheus mentioned in ancient sources. Orpheus was torn apart by wild Maenads. Dionysos in the mysteries was torn apart by the Titans. I'm removing the singular dubious image pending new sources. Why not start an article about the object? Lisa the Sociopath 19:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! I knew there were a number of strong parallels between Dionysus and Jesus, but I didn't realise there was any hint that crucifixion might be one of those parallels. It wouldn't be that surprising to me though if the two dying and resurrected gods were syncretised in late antiquity. If you want to yank the image out for the mo that's fine. I was hoping EALacey could explain more about why its authenticity is dubious, but hey, he's probably as busy as I am. I might get round to reading up on the gem and discover a bit more. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 03:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to be disappointing, but all I know about the amulet is what W. K. C. Guthrie says in Orpheus and Greek Religion (2nd edition, 1952). In his main text (apparently unchanged since the 1st edition) he dates it to the 3rd or 4th century AD and says it "has usually been supposed to be the work of some Gnostic sect exhibiting a syncretism of Orphic and Christian ideas" (p. 265). He then cites an alternative suggestion by Eisler that there was a myth of Dionysus' crucifixion independent of Christianity, but is unconvinced (he refers to Justin Martyr, Apology 1.55, who states that no pagan god was crucified). In a supplement to the second edition (p. 278), he writes: "In his review of this book in Gnomon, 1935, 476, Kern [author of the then standard collection of Orphic fragments, which was one of the sources Guthrie cited for the amulet] recants and expresses himself convinced by the expert opinion of J. Reil and R. Zahn (Ἄγγελος, Arch. f. neutest. Zeitgesch. und Kulturkunde, 1926, 62 ff.) that the ΟΡΦΕΟΣ ΒΑΚΚΙΚΟΣ gem is a forgery." I can't follow up these references as I don't read German. I also don't know whether any more recent scholarship has discussed the artifact in the context of Orphism. Unless some can be found, I'd favour leaving it off this page, although an Orpheus amulet article written by someone who'd read the German articles would be interesting. EALacey 10:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic. Yep, leave it off this page for now. I'd love to follow this up, but I don't know when I can. At least it'll be in the talk page archives now. I really appreciate that. Fuzzypeg☻ 20:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recently deleted from references

  • Antonio Virgili Culti misterici ed orientali a Pompei (Rome: Gangemi) 2008. This was deleted as "spam". Perhaps this was an error. Or a joke. --Wetman (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a joke. Multiple IP addresses (79.3.187.138, 82.51.81.254, 82.51.131.93, 82.51.174.107, 82.55.142.98, 82.55.146.87, 82.55.149.203, 89.97.190.82) have been editing exclusively to add references to Antonio Virgili's works to numerous articles: Demographic transition, Dionysian Mysteries, Dionysus, Eleusinian Mysteries, Heraldry, Jewish Emancipation, Kingdom of Italy (Napoleonic), Knights Hospitaller‎, Mother goddess, Mystery cult‎, Myth and ritual, Mythology‎, Øresund, Orgy‎, Orphism (religion), Polytheism, Religion in ancient Greece, Religion in ancient Rome, Religious symbolism, Sociology of religion, Villa of the Mysteries, and possibly more that have escaped my notice. It's possible that Antonio Virgili's works really ought to be recommended as further reading on all these topics, but if so that decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, and not by someone whose aim is clearly promotional. EALacey (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely right. There was more to this than met my eye. I don't suppose anyone has looked at the book in question.... --Wetman (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)