Jesus and Dionysus

[ElizabethPeart]

I've searched, no dedicated thread/discussion came up that wasn't ancient. I also ask here because I know I'll get a rational, level-headed discussion here instead of the usual flapping about and cries of blasphemy that the discussion I've had with Christians usually produces.

  Now it has been noted that there are some very big similarities between the respectice myths of Dionysus and Jesus, to the point where some ask whether the earlier Dionysus myth influenced, or was even plagarized by, Christians.

We have the general parallels:

- They are both born to virgin mothers and gods.
- They are both described as the 'Son of God'
- They both travel away from their hometowns and are at first rejected by their own.
- Many (and in the case of Dionysus, nearly all) of the first followers of the new god are women.
- The followers, being possessed by the spirit of the god, are able to do miracles.
- Both Jesus and Dionysus are associated as wine gods.
- They eventually ascend to heaven, and their mother is named Queen of Heaven.

And then you get thematic parallels between The Bacchae of Euripides and the New Testament accounts of Acts.

- The imprisonment and then miraculous escape of the followers from prison.
- The mocking of a leading figure towards the god or his followers (Pentheus King of Thebes in Bacchae)
- The destruction of the palace/temple. This is implied by Jesus in the NT and actually done in the Bacchae.
- The choice given to the central figures in the narratives (the jailkeeper in the NT, the king Pentheus in the Bacchae) to either submit to the will of the new god or be humiliated.

 I don't have my notes to hand so I can't cite references or any other examples/discussion.

Now the theory of my lecturer in this study was that Jesus probably existed, but that in order to attract more followers to what is essentially a small Jewish-only sect, the followers of Jesus after his death embellished the story of Jesus with elements of popular theology which would attract more people. Now Dionysus was a popular god at the time and Jewish and Greek settlements often overlapped each other, as well as there being trade, and so elements from the Dionysus story were added to the canon of Jesus' life stories.

  Any thoughts?

[joeactor]

Good set of observations.

I generally agree that there's a fair contribution from Dionysus for the Jesus mythology.

Plus, I've never seen them both in the same room.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Many of those ideas (virgin birth, divine parentage, resurrection, etc) were bubbling around the Mediterranean basin and Middle East, and had been for hundreds of years.

[ElizabethPeart]

Many of those ideas (virgin birth, divine parentage, resurrection, etc) were bubbling around the Mediterranean basin and Middle East, and had been for hundreds of years.

 Well this is the thing, but in particular Dionysus worship was popular in the specific cultural background of Biblical culture.


But yes, you're right- resurrection occurs in Horus myth in Egypt and the idea of the blood of a sacrifical animal giving eternal life (such as the bull of Mithras cult) is nothing new.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Given the Christian record of hijacking seasonal holidays, hijacking a neat story about their deity seems reasonable.

[ElizabethPeart]

Given the Christian record of hijacking seasonal holidays, hijacking a neat story about their deity seems reasonable.

Well it's basic memetic survival. In the purest form, Jesus' teachings would only have survived in a Jewish-influenced environment, and so would not have grown as big as it did, or even become a state religion, without adapting to those factors which would be attractive to potential non-Jewish converts. OK, there were some Roman converts to Judaism, but these were seriously rare, and so to attract great numbers of believers, the cult had to adapt and present its theology in such a way it would make sense to them. Cue a virgin birth, travelling, parables and mystic teachings, miracles and the Crucifixion, all of which acted as 'hooks' to anchor itself in Roman society.