Connections and relations between Noah and essential ancient deities, part 2, conclusions and notes

I will continue my exposition and analysis started in a previous post about the links between Noah and the chief god(s) in ancient cultures and religions.

In addition to his scientific contributions, Isaac Newton was known for his interest in occult topics, and for his particular or peculiar religious convictions. That said, he had some insights about the history of ancient religions, and expounded ideas and opinions that were held by scholars and authors during the 17th century and earlier centuries.

Newton expounded his views and ideas about the history of religions mostly in his manuscript document entitled ‘Theologiae gentilis origines philosophicae’ (Philosophical Origins of Gentile Theology). The contents of this document are discussed in the book Never at Rest, a Biography of Isaac Newton, by Richard Westfall:

“The ‘Origines’ started with the argument that all the ancient peoples worshiped the same twelve gods under different names.The gods were divinized ancestors-in fact Noah, his sons, and his grandchildren-though as this religion passed from people to people, each used it to its own ends by identifying the gods with its own early kings and heroes.[…] All peoples worshiped one god whom they took to be the ancestor of the rest. They described him as an old and morose man and associated him with time and with the sea. Clearly, Noah furnished the original model of the god called (among other names) Saturn and Janus. Like Noah, Saturn had three sons. Every people had a god whom they depicted as a mature man, the god they held most in honor. They had translated Ham into Zeus, Jupiter, Hammon, and others.”

Another book explaining Newton’s views is NEWTON AND RELIGION, Context, Nature, and Influence, edited by James Force and Richard Popkin:

“The ‘gods’ of pagan antiquity Newton identifies with Noah and Noah’s descendants. Noah and his sons are first idolized by their people as gods and, ultimately, identified with, especially, planets. Newton argues that Noah is ultimately deified as the god Saturn.”

In light of the authors, texts and documents mentioned in this post and in the related previous post, it can be seen that the identification of chief ancient deities with biblical characters centers around Noah and his children. Sometimes Noah is described as the equivalent of Cronus/ Saturn, sometimes he is identified with Ouranos, or with Zeus/Jupiter.

I think the best and most accurate description of Noah is to identify him with Zeus or Jupiter. Zeus or the other names by which he was known (Jupiter, Amun-Ra, Marduk, Baal, …, with some small differences or variations in their attributes, roles, and characteristics) as a supreme god in Antiquity was revered, followed or worshipped during many centuries. It is the most plausible explanation that the important and essential biblical character named Noah is the same person as the essential supreme deity known as Zeus or Jupiter, and also known by other names. Moreover, let us note that some authors identified the supreme god Ahura Mazda with Zeus, and that the chief Hindu god Indra has many common characteristics with Zeus.

Thus it can be stated that the story of Noah is the Biblical or monotheistic version of the story of Zeus or Jupiter, or equivalently, the Biblical character or figure Noah is the monotheistic version of (and the same person or original historical figure as) the non-monotheistic or polytheistic character and deity called Zeus or Jupiter.

It it possible to provide some additional explanations and clarifications.

The ancient Hebrews, their scribes and priests, or the followers of the (mainly monotheistic) Biblical religion in Antiquity and many others very likely knew about the connection between Noah and the deity called Zeus, Baal or Jupiter. This connection was more and more forgotten with the passing of years and centuries, notably in the centuries following the beginning of the Christian era. It is possible to argue or note that the conflicts or disagreements between the ancient monotheistic followers of the biblical religion and the (mostly polytheistic) people around them (from the ancient Egyptians and the Canaanites to the Greeks and Romans) were similar to the conflicts and disagreements between the followers of Islam, who viewed Jesus as a very important prophet, and the followers of Christianity, who regarded Jesus as the divine son of God and equal to God.

These connections and relations became somewhat blurred and unclear with time, causing some confusion, and leading various authors in the last few centuries to surmise and write that either Noah or his son Ham or his son Japheth could be identified with Zeus/Jupiter.

A man lived in the ancient past about two millennia before the start of the Christian era. This great man initiated new innovative teachings and ideas, and accomplished important deeds, which included piloting a ship that was unique in its kind and represented a great technological achievement. There were possibly a few animals on the ship, or not. The animals were mostly the results of posterior modifications and embellishments of the story. There was possibly a local flood or some local floods at the time when the ship sailed, but the limited knowledge of geography people had at that time, and later transmissions, embroiderings, added metaphorical elements and retransmissions of the story described the flood as global. The followers of this man gave different interpretations to the story of his life and actions, depending on their different mentalities, views and perspectives. Some increasingly revered him after he died, and many deified him with members of his family, giving him different names in different places, such as Amun-Ra, Baal and Zeus. Some also viewed him as a great man, prophet and patriarch.

About six centuries after the passing of this man, another man named Moses and his followers, inspired by earlier narratives of the ship and the flood, interpreted the story of this earlier important patriarch and described it in a strictly monotheistic way, calling him Noah.

The same thing happened two thousand years after the passing of the one who was later named Zeus (or Noah) to the great man named Jesus, who gave new innovative teachings for his time. The followers of Jesus interpreted his story in different ways and directions in the following centuries, many revering him and deifying him. And Christianity as the religion with Jesus as its head progressively replaced the religion having Zeus or Jupiter as its head.

About six centuries after Jesus, his story was interpreted in a strictly monotheistic way by the founder of Islam and his followers, who regarded Jesus as a very important prophet. It is to be noted that Noah and Jesus are regarded as two of the five greatest and most important prophets in Islam.

Patterns and regularities can be noticed in the progress of historical events described above, which can be explained by taking into account notions such as the periodical or cyclical return of events, and the transmutation or inversion of values, related to the philosophical ideas of Nietzsche.

In ancient cultures the great flood was justified by the decision and will of the relevant supreme god. In the Bible the flood was explained by the will of the biblical monotheistic god. The flood was explained by Christians as the result of the will and involvement of the Christian God and Jesus. And so on.

Some additional variations in the biblical account of the story of Noah can be explained.

I analyzed the story of Prometheus in previous posts. Prometheus was plausibly someone who stole fire from Zeus (or Noah) by envy, hubris and greed years before the ship sailed or was navigated, and was held accountable and punished. The story of Prometheus is not mentioned in the Bible, in the same way as the story of a character like Judas Iscariot is not mentioned in the Quran.

Since it was not appropriate for the man who was deified as the supreme god Zeus (or Marduk or Jupiter) and who ordered the Deluge to be the pilot of the ship, the story was modified and the man who piloted or navigated the ship was described as someone else, named Deucalion or Utnapishtim.

I mentioned elsewhere that people in Antiquity had a more permissive view of sexuality and were not inconvenienced by incest. For example, ancient Greeks used to celebrate annually the “Hieros Gamos” or holy marriage between Zeus and his sister-wife Hera. This importance given to endogamous marriage explains why the parents of Zeus, Cronus and Rhea, were depicted in ancient stories as brother and sister, even if in real history they were not necessarily siblings. The supreme god was supposed to be fertile and sexually active in Antiquity. By contrast, Christianity highlights or emphasizes the importance of chastity and virginity; this explains the insistence on the virginity of the mother of Jesus in the centuries following the start of the Christian era.

---

Taking into consideration the results and conclusions reached in this post, I want to give some remarks about the god of war game, which I alluded to in an earlier post.

The god of war game is distorting ancient stories, religions and cultures, inciting the misunderstanding or possibly the hatred of these cultures.

From the arguments in this post, it can be seen that this is a pointless game that is not only portraying badly ancient gods and deities, but is also killing a deity like Zeus, who is the non-monotheistic version of the story of Noah. Effectively the non-biblical version of Noah is being killed in the game, and nobody seems to comprehend this.

Perhaps players of the game don’t care about anything except pushing buttons and destroying all that can destroyed in the game, or perhaps some players have other religious backgrounds or think they are killing bad gods or “demonic” versions of ancient characters. The game depicts the killing of gods of the Greek pantheon and the Norse pantheon. If in the future this game involves for example killing ancient Egyptian gods, this would be somewhat ridiculous, since Amun-Ra and other Egyptian gods are the equivalents and the Egyptian versions of Zeus and other Greek gods.

I think the best attitude is to try to be neutral and try to understand other cultures. One does not have to follow or like someone like Zeus, Odin or Hercules, but one also does not have to portray them badly and show then getting killed.

I also think this game will not have good consequences, and that it is playing with things that should not be played with.

Connections and relations between Noah and essential ancient deities, part 1

Noah in the Bible, Deucalion in ancient Greek stories and mythology, and Utnapishtim in ancient Mesopotamian stories are figures or characters associated with a story of a global flood, being the only survivors (along with some other people, depending on the version of the story) and all connected to a supreme god (or gods) who warned them and helped them survive the flood.

The story of the ship and the flood was mentioned in ancient religions such as the Sumerian, Mesopotamian and Greek religions (with some modifications), always in relation to the supreme deity.

Something that has been forgotten in the last one or two centuries is that several authors in the past stated or thought that Zeus or Jupiter was the same person as one of the earliest most important patriarchs and prophets mentioned in the Bible, his story having been modified to comply with biblical monotheism.

There are many things and facts about ancient stories and cultures that became forgotten and misunderstood.
Judaism and Abrahamic religions have their early foundations and origins in older narratives and religions that had chief gods like Amun Ra, Marduk, Baal and Zeus, who were equivalent deities and represented effectively the same supreme god with different names in different places.

I will give a general exposition of the opinions and statements of these early authors, and present my conclusions according to my readings, observations, and analysis.

Reviewing the opinions of ancient authors or authors from previous centuries, one notices that they sometimes make different inaccurate comparisons, equivalences or identifications between deities or characters, but these identifications usually center around a few specific figures. The works and opinions of these authors may sometimes be described as not compatible with modern criteria of scholarship, but they contain useful historical information and views that were transmitted, sometimes with modifications, throughout the centuries.

Jacob Bryant (1715–1804) was an English scholar and mythographer. The following lines are taken from the first volume of his work A New System or Analysis of Ancient Mythology:

“[From the evidence of ancient authors and historians, it is found that] the Deluge was the grand epoch of every ancient kingdom. It is to be observed, that when colonies made anywhere a settlement, they ingrafted their antecedent history upon the subsequent events of the place. And as in those days they could carry up the genealogy of their princes to the very source of all, it will be found, under whatever title he may come, that the first king in every country was Noah. For as he was mentioned first in the genealogy of their princes, he was in aftertimes looked upon as a real monarch; and represented as a great traveller, a mighty conqueror, and sovereign of the whole earth.”

Here are statements by Bryant from the third volume of the same work. Note that there are more accurate, modern explanations of the origin and meaning of the name of Zeus:

“Noah was the original Ζευς, Zeus, and Dios. He was the planter of the vine, and the inventor of fermented liquors: whence he was denominated Zeuth, which signifies ferment, rendered Ζευς, Zeus by the Greeks. He was also Dionusos, interpreted by the Latines Bacchus, but very improperly. Bacchus was Chus, the grandson of Noah; as Ammon may be in general esteemed Ham, so much reverenced by the Egyptians.”

The lines below are from the work of William Howitt (1792–1879), entitled The History of the Supernatural in all Ages and Nations, and in all Churches, Christian and Pagan, demonstrating a Universal Faith:

“[Referring to the ancient Phoenician author Sanchoniatho or Sanchuniathon] In the remains of the Cosmogony of this historian of the Phoenicians, we have the mythology of that people, presenting the clearest testimony of the derivation of the Greek mythology from it. The Phoenicians, the great traders to western Europe, carrying their ideas as well as their wares everywhere, planted them all around the Mediterranean, and much farther west. Danaus and Orpheus are said to have carried much mythologic knowledge from Egypt to Greece; but the Phoenician mythology bears a still greater resemblance to the Greek theogony. […] Dagon, the brother of Cronus, is evidently Noah, for he came up out of the water. Cronus had also three sons, Zeus, Belus and Apollo.

[…] we find, from Central Asia, the same gods under different names, and what is more remarkable, the same primal doctrines of a triune and yet one God surviving everywhere under the most multifarious disguises. Probably these truths were the more strongly imprinted on the ancient mind, Noah, whom they deified, having three sons, whom they had come to regard as a reappearance of Adam and his three sons, Cain, Abel, and Seth.”

There is also mention of the writings of the ancient Chaldean or Babylonian author Beros(s)us about Xisuthrus (Noah) who was warned by Cronus-Enki about the flood. Berosus was mentioned and quoted by early historians such as Eusebius of Caeserea and Josephus. He was also cited by authors such as Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Younger, and Pausanias.

It is also possible to cite the ancient Egyptian priest Manetho, who was cited by later authors, and who wrote that “the first king of Egypt belonged to the tribe of Cham [Ham], Noah’s son; he was Pharaoh, who was also called Naracho”.

According to some other authors, Noah was identified with Ouranos, Noah’s son Ham was identified with Cronus or Saturn, and Zeus was identified with Mizraim the son of Ham. Some also idendified Noah’s son Japheth with Zeus/Jupiter, probably because of a superficial comparison between the letters and the names of the characters.

This post and my conclusions will be continued in a second part.

Polytheistic, monotheistic, and other aspects and views of religions and cultures

I will try to provide some notes and analysis concerning the differences and possible similarities between religions that are described as monotheistic or polytheistic, considering that there are connections between them.

Various theological explanations and philosophical interpretations have been given to the doctrine or concept of the Trinity throughout the history of Christianity.

The religions that can be regarded as strictly monotheistic are the Mosaic religion or Judaism, and the Islamic religion. Christianity could be described as a religion with limited monotheism or non-strict monotheism, depending on the interpretations.

From a historical point of view, Christianity as a religion having Jesus at its head gradually replaced the religion having Zeus or Jupiter as its head. In Christianity, God is given many attributes, Jesus is given many traits, character qualities, and attributes, and Mary the mother of Jesus has many qualities and virtues, and the same applies to other important religious figures.

In ancient religion(s), deities such as Zeus and the other gods are described by many or several attributes and epithets. In Christianity there is one God. For Trinitarians the one God exists in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons. This God is surrounded by angels, heavenly creatures and saints who are often patron saints of a group of people, or of a place, etc.

In ancient religion(s) there is a chief supreme god who is surrounded by creatures or characters with certain roles or functions, and by gods or demi-gods who could be patron gods adopted by a person, a group of persons, a place, a city, and so on.

Differences and contrasts between Christianity and ancient religions revolve (among other things) around their views about the conduct and way of life, the afterlife, hell, and sexuality.

Christianity emphasizes the importance of values or concepts such as chastity, abstinence, renouncing earthly desires and wealth, forgiveness, …

A way to explain the story of the life of Jesus and the ancient stories about a supreme god or deity like Zeus or Jupiter can be done in relation to the philosophical doctrine, theory or approach of Euhemerism, where the gods are viewed as great men or persons who lived at a particular period of time in history, who accomplished great deeds and innovative things or provided new important teachings, and who were revered and deified after they died, their stories being interpreted, reinterpreted, modified, allegorized or embellished with the passing of time.

These persons or historical figures didn’t necessarily lie and deceive or ask to be worshipped. They lived their lives and achieved great deeds and actions, then the reverence, deification and/or worship happened mostly after they died as the result of the interpretations and choices of their followers who remembered them and revered them according to their own ways and understandings. Throughout history there are also those who try to profit and have control over others by using particular interpretations of the stories of the great persons or innovators who preceded them.

Ancient religions usually depicted as polytheistic sometimes had doctrines or concepts approaching monotheism. Some historical examples are provided by the following online Encyclopedia Britannica article about monotheism:

“[In ancient Egyptian religion] are found polytheism, henotheism, pluriform monotheism, trinitarian speculations, and even a kind of monotheism. Especially in the time of the New Kingdom (16th–11th century BCE) and later, there arose theological speculations about many gods and the one god, involving concepts that belong to the realm of pluriform monotheism. These ideas are especially interesting when related to trinitarian conceptions, as they sometimes are. In a New Kingdom hymn to Amon are the words: “Three are all gods: Amon, Re and Ptah…he who hides himself for [humanity] as Amon, he is Re to be seen, his body is Ptah.” As Amon he is the “hidden god” (deus absconditus); in Re, the god of the sun, he becomes visible; as Ptah, one of the gods of the earth, he is immanent in this world.

[…] The classic religions of Greece and Rome were in the main polytheistic, but in later times tendencies arose, partly stimulated by philosophy and later also by Judaism and Christianity, toward inclusive monotheism. The hymn to Zeus by the Stoic philosopher Cleanthes (c. 330–c. 230 BCE) is the best-known document of this process. It praises Zeus as the essence of divinity in all gods, creator and ruler of the cosmos, omnipotent, the giver of every gift, and the father of humanity. In the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and in the religious philosophies of later antiquity, such as Neoplatonism and Neo-Pythagoreanism, inclusive monotheism was more or less the rule.”

The following Orphic hymn to Zeus shows a tendency towards monotheism, where Zeus is presented as the only god and as the creator of all the other gods who emanated from him:

“Zeus was first, Zeus was last, god of the bright bolt:
Zeus is the head, Zeus the middle, from Zeus are all things made;

Zeus the breath of all, Zeus was the fate of all:
Zeus is the king, Zeus the ruler of all, god of the bright bolt.”

I mentioned in other posts that something that has been forgotten in the last one or two centuries is that according to several authors in the past, Zeus or Jupiter was the same person as one of the earliest most important patriarchs mentioned in the Bible, his story having been modified to comply with biblical monotheism.

From a historical point of view, the Greek supreme god Zeus was identified with the Canaanite and Phoenician god Baal, and the father of Zeus, Cronus, was identified with Baal’s father, the god El. Zeus and El/Cronus were also known by other names in other places in Antiquity.

Many interactions in Antiquity took place between the ancient Hebrew religion and the ancient Canaanite, Ugaritic and Phoenician religion(s).

The word Elohim, used in the early parts of the Bible, is a grammatically plural noun for “gods” or “deities”, and is related to the word el. It is cognate to the word ‘l-h-m which is found in Ugaritic, where it is used as the pantheon for Canaanite gods, the children of El. This word is considered to be mostly used in the Bible to specifically designate the monotheistic Biblical God, who is also known as Yahweh. All of this may have caused some to identify El/Cronus with Yahweh, as it seems to have happened in this question.

There were period of time in human history when monotheism became stronger, and other periods when monotheistic beliefs were less strong.

Concerning the word atheist, it is to be noted that this word refers to the disbelief in, or the denial of, the existence of God or of gods. Historically, any person in Antiquity who did not believe in any deity supported by the state and by society was accused of atheism. Early Christians were described as atheists because they did not participate in the cults of the recognized gods and deities. So the words atheist and atheism can be applied in various contexts, not just in relation to the modern concept of people not believing in Christianity or in monotheism.

As a form of connection between monotheism and polytheism in Antiquity, let us also mention the Hypsistarians, i.e. worshippers of the Hypsistos (Greek: Ὕψιστος, the “Most High” God), and similar variations of the term first appearing in the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, in the fourth century CE. The term has been linked to a body of inscriptions that date from around 100 CE to around 400 CE, mostly small votive offerings, but also including altars and stelae, dedicated to Theos Hypsistos, or sometimes simply Hypsistos.

Some Hypsistarians followed syncretized monotheism and combined religious practices from paganism and Judaism, such as incorporating the cult of Zeus Sabazios with the God Yahweh Sabaoth.

Early followers of Christianity and Christian authors or theologians may have been influenced by religious imagery or representations found in ancient Egyptian religion and other old religions, and attempted to use such representations and adapt them in ways compatible with Christianity.

Pantheons of gods and relations, similarities or differences between religions, deities, and cultures

I will start by noting that several essential gods of different ancient pantheons can be identified as being the same or equivalent deities, with different names (and small variations in their stories).
Some authors identified the supreme god Ahura Mazda with Zeus.
The Egyptian supreme god Amun-Ra was the same as Zeus or Jupiter, also called Zeus Ammon or Jupiter Ammon.
Sometimes there was more than just a “triad” of important gods, such as the Ennead or Great Ennead, a group of nine deities in Egyptian mythology and ancient Egyptian religion, worshipped at the city of Heliopolis.

The Ennead included the sun god Atum; his children Shu and Tefnut; their children Geb and Nut; and their children Osiris, Isis, Set, and Nephthys. The Ennead sometimes included Horus, the son of Osiris and Isis.
Atum was equated with the sun god Ra. In the New Kingdom, when the god Amun rose to prominence he was merged with Ra as Amun-Ra.

In the ancient Canaanite and Phoenician religions, Baal is the equivalent of Zeus, and the god of the sea Yam is the equivalent of Poseidon or Neptune. The god Mot is identified with Hades or Pluto.

The Babylonian king of the gods Marduk was associated with Zeus by the ancient Greeks, and associated with Jupiter by the Romans. There is an ancient Hittite and Hurrian group of texts known as The Song of Kumarbi, “Song of Emergence” or Kingship in Heaven. Scholars have pointed out the similarities between the Hurrian myth and the story from Greek mythology of Uranus, Cronus, and Zeus.

In Hinduism the chief god Indra has many characteristics in common with Zeus.

It is possible to notice that several ancient religions or cultures were connected and had a common origin. One could observe or suggest that these ancient religions and the related ancient stories and mythologies had their origin in the ancient Near East, West Asia and the (eastern) Mediterranean, plausibly based on some events that were rooted in history. A second related source of origin pertains to ancient India and the ancient Hindu religion, since the ancient Indians had many historical interactions with the ancient Persians in terms of cultural exchanges and political influence (particularly during the Achaemenid empire), language, religion, spirituality, etc. The ancient practices, beliefs, ideas and religions spread to the entire Mediterranean region and to the south of Europe, to Greece and Italy. It is plausible that these ancient religions, stories and practices also spread (with some modifications) to the north and to other parts of Europe through a process of gradual cultural diffusion, influencing the formation of ancient Germanic and Norse religion(s) and mythology.

In light of my readings and analysis, it can be said that whether polytheistic or not, religions and cultures are interconnected in one way or another. The ancient allegorical stories of gods and deities that were constructed, embellished and changed with time could be explained reasonably by philosophical doctrines similar to Euhemerism, where these diverse embroidered stories are considered to be rooted in history. A very plausible and a realistic explanation of the origins of ancient religions is that most of them (in the ancient world and in the Mediterranean region and the Near East, and beyond), started mainly with a man who lived in ancient times, most likely about two millennia before the beginning of the Common or Christian era. This man did great and important things, accomplished great deeds, and brought about new innovative teachings and ideas for his time. This man left a lasting impression on those who saw or knew him. When he died he was revered, his life and actions being interpreted in different ways and directions. There were people who revered him a lot, divinized and deified him or started worshipping him.

This man was later called Amun Ra by the Egyptians. He was called Baal by the Canaanites and the Phoenicians, Zeus by the ancient Greeks, and Jupiter by the Romans. He was very likely the same deity as the supreme god Indra of the Hindus (since Zeus and Indra had many similar characteristics), Ahura Mazda of the ancient Persians, as well as other supreme gods in the ancient world.

Regarded as the head of a pantheon (or several related and connected pantheons, with small or minor differences between them), and as the father and ruler of the gods, he, his family and the other related deities had their stories transmitted, retransmitted, interpreted, reinterpreted, and modified over the years and centuries. Supernatural, symbolic and metaphorical elements were added to the stories of the gods with the passing of time. Each generation or group of people interpreted these ancient stories according to their understanding and their cultural and physical environment.

Did this man or person want to be deified or worshipped? He likely wanted to live his life and “do what was needed”, he knew that he was doing important things and that he was going to be remembered, but the deification or worship and the subsequent rituals and religious practices were mostly the result of the interpretations and choices of those who knew him, liked him, and/or followed him.

A thing that has been somewhat forgotten in the last two centuries is that many authors of the past, from the ancient Babylonian author Berosus to Isaac Newton and others, stated or were of the opinion that Zeus or Jupiter was the same person as one of the earliest and most important patriarchs in the Bible, his story having been modified to comply with biblical monotheism.

Another man came and lived about two millennia ago. He did important things, brought about new innovative teachings and concepts of morality for his time, and left a big impression on those who knew him and on his followers. He was subsequently revered, deified and worshipped by his followers, his story being interpreted and explained in various and different ways and directions, with allegorical and supernatural elements added to it. This man is mostly known by the name of Jesus.

About three centuries after his passing, the religion with Jesus at its head gradually replaced the religion having Zeus or Jupiter at its head.

In the same way that the one known as Zeus or Jupiter was mentioned as a very important patriarch or prophet in the monotheistic Bible, Jesus was later mentioned as a very important prophet in the strictly monotheistic Quran.

During the last century and the last few decades, a progressive change in mentalities and a regain of interest in ancient philosophies, ancient cultures, and ancient religions took place. Taking into account the evolution of ideas and the progress and advances in science during the last centuries and decades, there is a possibility that a new transmutation of values is gradually taking place, related to some sort of periodical or cyclical return of historical events, being the inverse of what happened at the start of Christianity two millennia ago. In any case, one will have to wait, see and look at the unfolding of future events.

Remarks about comparing the spaceship carrying humans to Mars with a modern day Noah’s Ark

I will start with some notes about the older, ancient story of Noah and the ark, then move on to modern spaceships.

The biblical story of Noah, of the ship and of the flood was taken, inspired or borrowed from earlier stories related to older cultures and religions.

The flood could have been local, which is more plausible. Various allegorical and metaphorical elements and dramatizations were added with time, but denying the complete story of the ship and the flood is not the right approach, since the story was rooted in history.

Ancient narratives

The counterpart of Noah in the older Mesopotamian narrative, from which the Biblical flood story was taken, borrowed, or inspired, is called Utnapishtim. Utnapishtim took in the ark his wife, family, relatives, the craftsmen of his village, baby animals, and grains.

One of the metaphorical additions could have very well been the animals (or the amount or number of animals) in (or on) the ship. Noah’s counterpart or equivalent in the ancient Greek story, for example, is called Deucalion.

Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha survived the deluge unleashed by Zeus by building a chest. There are essentially no animals in this version of the flood story. Some authors added pigeons by which Deucalion tried to find out whether the waters had retired, and some later authors such as Lucian (flourished 2nd century CE) added animals that Deucalion had taken with him.

The story of the ship and the flood was explained or interpreted in relation to a decision or decree by the supreme god or deity in ancient (polytheistic) religions, and in relation to the monotheistic God in the Bible. Every ancient culture and group of people explained this story and the events related to it according to their particular social, cultural and religious environment, background, ideas and beliefs. Moreover, there is a direct relationship between the character of Noah and the supreme deity that ordered the flood in the narratives of ancient cultures and religions. This is a point or topic that I could expand on in a future article or post.

In early Antiquity an important event took place where a man built, “drove” or piloted a ship that was the first or unique of its kind and likely represented a significant technological achievement at that time. The man had the ship land on a (very) high place. This man accomplished other great things or deeds, and the story of his life and of his actions was remembered, transmitted, told, retold, interpreted and reinterpreted in various ways.

The story of the great flood and of the demise of all humans outside the ship contained dramatized or allegorical elements. I will try to present (according to my readings and analysis) a possible reasonable way to explain what happened.

The ship was unique and a technological accomplishment, it landed on a high place and the events left a big impression on the people at that time. There were possibly some local floods or one big local flood that took place. People at that time in Antiquity didn’t know about the shape of the Earth and about all its parts or regions, and they likely thought that the region or part of the planet where they lived represented the entire inhabited world, which is one of the reasons why the flood was made global and total in subsequent narratives. Some wondered or said that IF there had been really a global catastrophe or flood when the ship or ark was sailing, the only ones who would have survived would have been the people (and the other living creatures, if any) present on the ship. From the word IF to making it a reality there are only a few steps, and these steps were crossed when the story was told, retold and retransmitted generation after generation, with embellishments, metaphorical and supernatural elements gradually added to it.

In the past the ship was a boat, an Ark, and the high place where it landed was a mountain. In the future, the ship could be the first spaceship carrying humans to another planet, and the high place could be a planet such as Mars.

Modern spaceship narrative

I think a spaceship carrying humans to another planet, particularly the first ship that will carry humans in the context of the first human mission to planet Mars, will be an important event that will be remembered and interpreted in various ways in the decades and centuries following the mission. One or some of these interpretations or narratives will consider the spaceship to be somewhat similar to Noah’s ship or ark, and the leader of the first human mission or trip to Mars could be possibly viewed within these interpretations as someone similar to Noah.

Here is another related remark. It is mentioned in the Bible that Noah was about 500 years old when he had children, and about 600 years old when the flood started and he entered the ark. Taking into consideration that the ages of the first ancient patriarchs were allegorically exaggerated or extended in the early parts of the Bible, and that the real age could be found by dividing the allegorical age approximately by 10, this would mean or entail that the age of 500 can be realistically rendered as 50 approximately, and that the man named Noah in the Bible was approximately (a little more than) 60 years old when the flood began and he entered the ship. It would be interesting or relevant to know or take notice of the age of the first person who will be the leader of the first human mission to planet Mars when the speceship begins its human trip to the red planet.

There are many valid reasons that could be given to justify the human mission to Mars and the human exploration of other planets. Some of these reasons include that life could be threatened on planet Earth, that after inhabiting the entire planet humans naturally ought to go beyond Earth and explore and inhabit the Moon and other planets, and so on. However it should be taken into account that at this period of time few humans are ready or prepared to take part in a human mission to Mars, and in order to succeed, such a human mission should be the result of thorough preparation and of global and international collaboration. And the human mission to Mars is not and should not be a suicide mission. Whether a person will get on the spaceship to Mars or not depends on this person being adequately qualified, prepared and ready to do so.

In any case, let us see how future events will unfold.

Concerning the historical existence of ancient characters and biblical figures

The biblical story of a figure such as Moses evidently contains allegorical, metaphorical and supernatural elements. It reflects the worldview, the ideas, the environment and the mentality of the authors who composed or wrote that narrative, it was embellished, dramatized, modified and perhaps exaggerated with the passing of time. But this doesn’t mean that the biblical characters in these stories or tales are to be completely dismissed as fictional, since they were ultimately rooted in history.

There are atheists who get carried away sometimes by what could be described as their extreme convictions or opinions, and tend to erroneously, hastily or excessively deny many things and (ancient) historical figures, including the existence of biblical characters such as Moses, which is a counterproductive and unhelpful position.

One could be nonreligious, agnostic or atheist, one could have a scientific or rational outlook or way of thinking, and at the same time accept or recognize the historical existence of biblical characters and events. This approach also applies to other ancient stories and narratives.

This point of view is applicable or relevant to many important biblical figures, as well as to the main ancient gods and goddesses (of the Greeks, Egyptians, and others). Beneath the embellished narratives, the modifications, the layers of legends and supernatural, metaphorical or mythological elements, there existed a real historical basis, a real historical origin, real historical persons, and real historical events. In contrast to the generally polytheistic interpretations provided in the stories of the ancient gods and deities, the stories of the significant ancient biblical characters and patriarchs were mostly geared towards monotheism.

Archeological evidence is important and useful, but this type of evidence is not always obtainable. If direct archeological findings in relation to ancient or very ancient persons or events are not available, are misinterpreted or are incomplete, that doesn’t necessarily mean or show that these persons or events did not exist. Other methods like the analysis and comparison of historical events, the study and comparison of ancient texts, philology, and so on, can be helpful.

Moses for example was mentioned outside the Bible by several writers and authors during the first few centuries before and after the beginning of the Christian or Common Era, such as Artapanus of Alexandria, Strabo, Tacitus, and Josephus.

Considering briefly another early important biblical figure, the biblical story of Noah contains also many metaphorical, symbolic, supernatural, embellished or exaggerated elements. The details of the story of the ship, of the flood (it could have been realistically a local flood), of the people, animals or passengers on the ship and of the man who steered that ship were transmitted and were mentioned with modifications and variations in various ancient and earlier cultures. Taking all these remarks, reservations or provisions into account, the story of the man named Noah in the Bible was also very plausibly rooted in history.

Concerning the God of War game, Part 1

I don’t usually play computer hack and slash games, but I read about this game and watched demos and videos about it online, so I’ll try to present my opinion about it, taking into account the knowledge I have and my earlier readings.

I tried to find an educational or instructional value to this game, but unfortunately I couldn’t find any. It seems to be only concerned with the representation and glorification of excessive, needless, pointless violence, aggressiveness, slashing and killing.

The stories, actions or deeds of the ancient gods were narrated or mentioned in works such as the Theogony of Hesiod and the Iliad by Homer for the Greeks, or the Metamorphoses by Ovid and the Aeneid by Virgil for the Romans. These stories were later on called “mythologies”, but they form the foundation of the ancient Greek and Roman religions. The entirety of these ancient narratives, stories and tales can be regarded as being part of the cultural heritage and of the ancient religious heritage of humanity.

Moreover, there is a plausible and realistic explanation of these stories and myths, related to an approach called Euhemerism, according to which the gods and goddesses were great men and women of the past who made great accomplishments and were deified after their death.

So the stories of the gods may have been embellished and somewhat modified with the passing of time and centuries, but beneath the myths there was realistically a historical basis. The stories were already somewhat modified in the ancient tales, and this game almost completely distorts the ancient narratives.

Let’s consider some of these changes and distortions. Kratos was a minor god or a personification of power in ancient mythology, he worked for Zeus and was mentioned in a couple of plays by Aeschylus, but now he has been considerably “beefed up” in the God of War game for the enjoyment of players.

Athena had sacrificed herself for Zeus earlier in the game, then she’s somehow brought back to help Kratos against her father Zeus. The thing is, all ancient narratives agree that the goddess of wisdom and strategy was always loyal to her father Zeus.

It is known in mythology that Zeus was never overthrown or defeated. He was successful in defeating and vanquishing all his greatest opponents, such as the monster Typhon, and Athena was always present at his side. A thin plot is made for Kratos in the game in order to give him a thin excuse to mindlessly “slash and kill”.

Zeus was also known as the “lord of justice”. Here is how Hesiod begins his Works and Days, showing that Zeus judges everyone fairly, defends the weak, elevates the humble and denounces the arrogant, and gives everyone what he or she deserves:

“Muses of Pieria who give glory through song, come hither, tell of Zeus your father and chant his praise. Through him mortal men are famed or un-famed, sung or unsung alike, as great Zeus wills. For easily he makes strong, and easily he brings the strong man low; easily he humbles the proud and raises the obscure, and easily he straightens the crooked and blasts the proud […]”

Source: Hesiod: Works and Days

Actually there is a scholarly book about the justice of Zeus and the concept of “Dike”:

The Justice of Zeus, by Hugh Lloyd-Jones.

As an example from another ancient text, Zeus was depicted as neutral, just and unbiased in the Iliad. Unlike some of the other gods, Zeus didn’t take sides with those involved in the war, and strived to act and to judge everyone impartially.

Zeus was regarded as the protector of the social order by ancient Greeks, and Jupiter was viewed as the protector of the Roman republic and the Roman empire by the ancient Romans.

Another book illustrating the importance of Zeus and his will for people in Antiquity is the following one:

The Will of Zeus: A History of Greece from the Origins of Hellenic Culture to the Death of Alexander, by Stringfellow Barr.

To understand how people viewed sexuality in Antiquity and the mentalities during that period of time, it ought to be noted that many had positive views about sexuality and about different sexual practices and behaviors, including incestuous relationships and endogamous marriage. From a historical point of view, in ancient Greece, ancient Egypt and in many other places, kings or rulers used to marry their siblings or their direct relatives. For example, the laws of Lycurgus of Sparta and the laws of Solon in Athens allowed marriage between brother and sister. It is known from ancient documents that brother-sister marriage was permitted in ancient Egypt until the end of the third century CE. Therefore it can be noticed that ancient Greeks and many people in Antiquity did not see the gods as “morally corrupt” or as “histrionic incestuous rapists”.

Another fact that is not often remarked is that the gods of Greece and Rome were related to, identified with, and frequently represented another version of other gods or deities in the Near East or in the Mediterranean region.

Zeus or Jupiter was called Amun-Ra by the Egyptians, and was called Baal by the Canaanites , Phoenicians and Carthaginians. When Alexander the Great came to Egypt, he was declared the son of Zeus-Ammon or Jupiter-Ammon, which indicates that Amun-Ra and Zeus Ammon were the same deity. Some writers identify Ahura Mazda, the supreme god of the ancient Persians and of Zoroastrianism, with Zeus or Jupiter. Each region might have had its own specific or local deities, some syncretisms were elaborated, but the principal supreme gods and the main deities were the same.

So if the creators of the God of War game were thinking of using the gods of ancient Egypt in the game, they may be just encouraging players to combat or kill another version of the Greek gods. Even Odin and the Norse gods bear resemblance to Zeus and the Greek gods.

Would the creators of the game choose for example Indra (who has a lot of similarities with Zeus) and the Hindu gods in a future version of God of War? Or perhaps they won’t or can’t do it because Hinduism has a substantial number of followers nowadays?

In his essays and speculations about history and theology, Isaac Newton thought that the ancient gods were divinized ancestors. Newton identified Noah with Saturn (or Kronus, the father of Zeus/Jupiter), and the three sons of Noah with the three sons of Saturn.

Newton’s identification may not have been totally accurate, however it is very plausible that Zeus was the same person as one of the important early patriarchs mentioned at the beginning of the Bible or the biblical narrative, this patriarch representing the modified biblical or “Mosaic”, i.e. related to Moses, version of the story of Zeus/Jupiter. Taken in this sense or through this interpretation, the God of War Game is advocating or representing the senseless killing or murder of the “polytheistic version” or the non-Biblical version of one of the essential and one of the most important ancient patriarchs or prophets mentioned in the Bible.

Would the creators of the game choose Noah or the biblical patriarchs to replace the gods and fight against Kratos? What would be the reaction of the followers of the Abrahamic religions? In any case, it is regrettable that there are a lot of things that the followers of Abrahamic religions don’t understand about ancient cultures and ancient religions, and about the history of the origins and foundations of their own religions.

I think the God of War game has gone way too far in attempting to attract gamers and players, just to “hack, kill, slash and smash” ceaselessly and pointlessly, and to cause complete destruction and chaos without thinking about the consequences.

About Zeus, Prometheus, and the punishment of the latter- Part Three

Here is a continuation of my analysis, ideas and comments concerning the story and the punishment of Prometheus, and an attempt to explain or interpret plausibly what happened between Prometheus and Zeus, and how Prometheus and his actions ought to be assessed and viewed.

I will consider the story of the one they called Zeus in Greek from the point of view of Euhemerism, which states that the gods were real great men or great heroes of the past who accomplished great things and were deified after they died.

According to this perspective, Zeus/Jupiter may be regarded as a very great man of the past who had the most advanced way of thinking, the most advanced teachings and the most advanced knowledge in the world and at the period of time he lived in.

As I mentioned in the previous posts about this topic, Prometheus would be best regarded as a mediocre man with little preparation or with limited potentiality for greatness or creativity, who lived alongside the great man who was later called Zeus or Jupiter, and who by jealousy, hubris, conceit, attachment to old ways of thinking, and by misguided actions, betrayed and tried to trick and hurt that great man who was his contemporary.

I will try to compare Prometheus (as accurately as possible) to historical characters or potential historical characters in order to give a better idea about his character, his personality, and his historical role.

I want to point out that Zeus as a historical person was not necessarily or literally a king or political ruler as he is sometimes portrayed. As the head or the greatest deity of the ancient Greek religion (and known by other names as the head of other ancient religions), Zeus was portrayed as a king or ruler practically in the same way as Jesus (the head and founder of the Christian religion) was described as a king and a just ruler by Christian writers and theologians.

The following comparison is not totally accurate, but it gives an idea about someone Prometheus could be approximately and reasonably compared to.

If  Prometheus had lived at the time of Pythagoras, he would have been someone (more or less) comparable to Cylon of Croton.

Here is how Iamblichus describes Cylon in his Life of Pythagoras:

“Cylon, a Crotoniate and leading citizen by birth, fame and riches, but otherwise a difficult, violent, disturbing and tyrannically disposed man, eagerly desired to participate in the Pythagorean way of life. He approached Pythagoras, then an old man, but was rejected because of the character defects just described. When this happened Cylon and his friends vowed to make a strong attack on Pythagoras and his followers. Thus a powerfully aggressive zeal activated Cylon and his followers to persecute the Pythagoreans to the very last man. Because of this Pythagoras left for Metapontium and there is said to have ended his days.”

Cylon had no notable historical importance or greatness by himself, but he is remembered because he interacted with a very great thinker, mathematician and philosopher named Pythagoras. He tried to follow Pythagoras, but when he couldn’t or was rejected, he tried to hurt the great man.

The next comparison involves a fictional or hypothetical character (comparable to Prometheus) who would have lived at the time of Isaac Newton. This character (let’s just call him P) would have belonged to a somewhat well-to-do family, and would have been a student at Trinity College, Cambridge, between 1668 and 1672, or (if not a student) would have been someone whose job or (non-academic) work was related to Trinity College and Cambridge.

P would have made the acquaintance of Newton at Cambridge, who sometimes invited him to his office or quarters, and showed him some of his mathematical and physical papers, and some blueprints or sketches related to the reflecting telescope he was designing.

P had no interest in and no potential for mathematical, philosophical, intellectual or scientific innovation or creativity. He generally had conservative religious and philosophical ideas and opinions, most likely reading very few books and sticking to the ideas of ancient thinkers such as Aristotle.

P visited Newton and inquired about his work and papers. He became more and more jealous of Newton, realizing or seeing that Newton might publish his papers and design a new telescope to be shown to the Royal Society in the near future, thus becoming known and famous and an important person. Newton started to notice P’s attitude and his envious words and behavior, but he didn’t give it too much attention, and tried to gradually distance himself from P, and to conceal his work and papers from others until he was ready to publish them or make them known.

People were able to write philosophical, scientific or pseudo-scientific papers at the time of Newton, and telescopes existed before Newton, but Newton was unique at the period of time when he was alive, in the sense that he was a very great man capable of great creativity and innovation in science, mathematics, (natural) philosophy, and the design of telescopes or scientific instruments (Newton’s interest in alchemy and occult studies will not be discussed here). This relates to the idea that humans might have known elementary or rudimentary ways to use fire (and related technology) at the time of Zeus and Prometheus, but Zeus was the one capable of using fire (and related technology or applications) in very creative, useful and innovative ways.

One day, P waited for an opportunity when Newton left his office for a short period of time without closing the door. He went into Newton’s office, or probably sent a close acquaintance or a servant of his to Newton’s office, and took away a number of Newton’s scientific and mathematical papers, as well as a sketch and a piece or two of the telescope Newton was designing.

It is evident that Newton was very angry and upset when he saw that his papers and work had been stolen. He knew from the behavior of P and his way of speaking before and after the theft that he was the culprit. He tried to talk to P, and he even reached out to P’s family, and tried to negotiate with them for weeks in order to get back what was stolen. P denied having anything to do with what happened, and even feigned to be shocked and offended when Newton said he just wanted his work and papers back and he wouldn’t hold anyone accountable and forget the whole thing if everything was returned.

Fortunately Newton had duplicates or drafts of most of his papers, but he had to rewrite some of the papers, and to remake the stolen pieces of the telescope he was building. He also had to keep quiet and wait for some time before he could get justice for himself and retribution for the culprit. During that time, P hid what he had stolen in his house. He sometimes showed the papers to some people he knew well, and tried to sell the telescope pieces and some of the papers but was unsuccessful. He tried to read Newton’s scientific papers but couldn’t understand them. He scribbled some nonsensical words or some poems or songs on some of the papers, and threw one or two papers away, but he kept most of them hidden.

Newton had to wait more than a decade, until he became a productive member of the Royal Society, or until he published the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and became a known, recognized and important scientific figure. Then he was able to act appropriately, exerted pressure on P and his family, and made P give him back what he had stolen and admit everything. P was deservedly, rightfully and justly punished and sent to prison for what he had done. Newton even had to punish appropriately one or two of P’s relatives for being involved in what had happened and for being P’s accomplices. 

P was a mediocre person who acted out of jealousy and envy and tried to trick and hurt Newton, without benefitting anybody by his actions. Perhaps many centuries later or more than three millennia later, the details of what happened between P and Newton would become unclear, blurred or lost, and some people or writers would state or conclude (wrongly) that P was a benefactor or a hero who tried to help humans by his act of theft, and that Newton acted hastily or unfairly by punishing P, thus accusing Newton of concealing scientific knowledge and technology away from humans and of being unhelpful to humanity.

And here is in my opinion another fairly close comparison.

If Prometheus had lived at the time of Jesus, he would have been comparable to someone named Judas Iscariot.

This comparison might be regarded as somewhat controversial. It also seems that some writers are trying nowadays to rehabilitate Judas.

Whether one is religious or not, I think it ought to be evident that Jesus was the greatest man at the period of time when he was alive. Whether opinions and views about Judas change or not, I think that like Prometheus, he ought to be considered as someone who lived in the presence of a man of the greatest historical importance, and like Prometheus, he didn’t have intrinsic historical importance or greatness, but his actions were a “catalyzer” or a “catalyst” for subsequent important events.

From the ancient narratives, stories and myths about Zeus, it is known that he lived a long life and died at an advanced age. By the nature of his life, the one they called Zeus in Greek was able to hold Prometheus accountable and to justly punish him while he was alive.

What can be generally deduced from the narratives and opinions of the majority of authors, poets and writers who mentioned Prometheus from Antiquity to the eighteenth century (before Prometheus was made into a hero and benefactor without justification) is that Prometheus was a mediocre, unexceptional character who stole fire by envy, hubris and greed, without benefiting anyone. He was not able to do anything helpful or creative with fire; the one who was capable of doing significant and creative things with fire was Zeus. What Prometheus did had nothing to do with rational thinking, concern for other humans, or humanism, as his story was frequently interpreted (or misinterpreted) in the last two centuries. Just arrogance, jealousy, hubris, misguided actions, and greed, followed a by well deserved and rightful punishment.

As an additional remark, at the end of the nineteenth century, in his introduction to the Prometheus Bound tragic play of Aeschylus, the philologist Nicolaus Wecklein described Prometheus as a “short-sighted forethinker”. Since the etymology of the name Prometheus either signifies “afterthought” or refers to stealing and theft, it would be best and more plausible to emphasize the meaning of “thief” or “theft”.

I hope this analysis provided reasonable, coherent, valid and correct explanations and interpretations concerning the story of Prometheus and his punishment. Hopefully additional or better arguments or some new evidence would emerge in the future, confirming or corroborating the analysis given in this post and the previous ones.

 

About Zeus, Prometheus, and the punishment of the latter- Part Two

I will continue my analysis, ideas and comments concerning the punishment of Prometheus, how it was viewed by various writers and thinkers, and what likely happened between Prometheus and Zeus.

A painting of Titian in 1548-1549 ( see the image below), representing the giant Tityus being punished in a way similar to that by which Prometheus was punished, was mistakenly thought to represent Prometheus  for decades and even centuries, and was an inspiration for later painters who represented Prometheus (based on the erroneous identification of Titian’s painting). Tityus was punished for having violated or having tried to violate Leto/Latona, the mother of Apollo and Artemis/Diana.

The Punishment of Tityus , by Titian

The painter José de Ribera  also made a painting of the punishment of Tityus in 1632. 

Perhaps if the details of the story and the accurate sequence of events which led to the theft of fire by Prometheus were known ( see my previous post about the same topic), they would show and prove that Prometheus did not help or benefit anyone by his theft. The actions of Prometheus were caused by envy, jealousy, hubris, greed and treachery, he misused the thing he had stolen, played with it carelessly or ignorantly with no beneficial or creative results, and consequently he deserved to be chastised just as Tityus and other characters such as Tantalus and Ixion deserved to be punished for their actions .

The view that Prometheus was a good benefactor and an important figure started at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, when a number of known writers, poets and thinkers more of less promoted this trend, which was partly based on the misinterpretation of the play Prometheus Bound (presumably) by Aeschylus. I’ll take a look at some of these views and comment on them.

In his youth , Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote a poem about Prometheus. In Goethe’s poem, Prometheus mentions his childhood and the disappointment of the prayers he addressed to the gods. From the poem it looks as if Prometheus had a deep feeling which led him to free himself from the gods.
This statement bears an amount of anachronism and contradiction with the mythological story of the gods: when Prometheus was a child , the future gods were still overpowered and ‘swallowed’ by their father (the Titan Cronus), then when Zeus grew up he stood up to his father and freed his siblings. As a child and as a man too, Prometheus followed the older established order of the Titans and must have followed any form of older religion or mentality or way or thinking related to the Titans. According to the mythological stories he was of the same generation as Zeus and the Olympians gods but he stayed with the old order of the Titans. It was Zeus/Jupiter who created a newer order , gave his brothers and sisters their positions according to their powers and abilities, and brought stability to the world. Prometheus didn’t accept this new order which was based on new ideas related to justice and pragmatism. If Prometheus was praying to anyone, then it is more reasonable to suppose that he prayed to whatever deities the Titans prayed to, and he disliked Zeus and his family and offspring for leaving the old ways of praying and thinking of the Titans and for innovating and creating new ways.
With time Goethe  abandoned to a certain extent his interest for or liking of Prometheus. As he grew old, Goethe was compared by several writers to an Olympian god and to Zeus himself.
For example , Frederick Engels wrote in Feuerbach: The roots of the socialist philosophy :
“Goethe and Hegel, each of them was an Olympian Zeus in his own sphere, but they were neither of them quite free from German philistinism.”
And the German romantic writer Jean Paul (1763-1825) described Goethe as “the Olympian who rules the world from his throne” .

In the nineteenth century C.E., a number of writers and philosophers made unfounded allegations and extrapolations and began a certain trend which pictured Prometheus as a figure of free thought and anti-religion and a hater of all the gods. The fact is Prometheus himself was called a god and a Titan god .

When in some of his first writings Karl Marx tried to make of Prometheus a champion of anti-religion and a martyr of philosophy, portraying him as a freethinker who despised all gods, many critical remarks are in order : Marx read the play by Aeschylus and understood it literally, not taking into account that Aeschylus used a good amount of irony and intended to show Prometheus as delusional and arrogant. Marx also didn’t consider the fact that Prometheus was a Titan attached to an old form of ‘nobility’ , an old way of thinking and old traditions. When Prometheus said he hated all the gods , it’s reasonable to think that he meant by gods the people related to Zeus who were called (Olympian) gods and who represented a new order and a new way of thinking. He hated the Olympian gods, but he surely didn’t hate the Titan gods. In fact Prometheus was attached to these older Titan gods who stretched and ‘over-reached’ themselves more than they could and were limited in their sphere of action and were defeated, and he followed whatever old form of religion or belief which was accepted by the Titans. So the conclusions made by Marx about Prometheus’s freethinking and ‘atheism’ are extrapolated and unproven conjectures which seem to project the wishful ideals of Marx onto Prometheus.

Nietzsche tried for a while to interpret the story of Prometheus as involving someone who stood against divine power (i.e Zeus), someone who opposed the morality related to Christianity and Judaism, which was based on sin, and who showed that even sacrilege and theft can be dignified. Again I think this is wishful thinking by Nietzsche and an attempt to project on Prometheus his own aspirations , ideas and opinions. Prometheus disappeared from Nietzsche’s work together with the appearance of the philosopher’s new central character : the Übermensch.

I think the writer who went the furthest in his glorification of Prometheus was Percy Bysshe Shelley , who wrote the drama Prometheus Unbound and published it in 1820 .

As the author of The Necessity of Atheism, Shelley chose the wrong person to elevate to the post of hero or champion. Shelley ought to have taken into account the very plausible fact that Prometheus was most likely an intellectual mediocrity and someone who was attached to old traditions, old mentalities and probably an old form of religion related to the group of people he belonged too, the ones who were subsequently called Titans, who outreached themselves, were limited in their thinking and their actions, and who consequently lost their dominion and power and were defeated by Zeus and his siblings. Prometheus had nothing to do with freethinking , advanced thinking or technological innovation. He was no better than his fellow Titans (who were punished) other than by the fact that he tried to use guile and trickery, but he didn’t succeed at what he did. He did not benefit others by his act of theft, was outsmarted by Zeus and got what he deserved. 

The poet or writer has the responsibility to tell the truth and give a fair and reliable account of past events, even if he does that in a literary, stylish or figurative way.
While calling Zeus/Jupiter “The Oppressor of Mankind” in his play, Percy Bysshe Shelley must have known that Zeus was called “The Lord of Justice”, “The patron of hospitality and guests” , “The keeper of oaths” , “Soter ,(Savior)”, “Jupiter Optimus Maximus Invictus” ( by the Romans), along with too many other epithets and names.
Shelley wrote a Hymn of Apollo. He praised the son but disliked the father, although Apollo’s father was known to be the ruler, the greatest and the most important of the Olympian gods . Perhaps some inconsistency is to be noticed here.
Moreover, according to Apollo’s mythology, after he was born he was known to have said : “May the lyre and the bow be dear to me forever , and I will prophesy to mortals the unerring will of Zeus”.
Shelley took a story told in ancient myths, poems, narratives and religions, a story which had plausibly true historical events as its basis, and he twisted that story and made the one who was known to have never been defeated or dethroned (i.e. Zeus/Jupiter , Optimus Maximus ,Victor, Invictus , Stator , as he was called by the Romans ) end up being vanquished. He also made the envious mediocrity who was defeated and justly punished look like the victor in events and conditions which never took place. He tried to represent Prometheus as some sort of dissenting intellectual or innovator who requested reforms, while the one who brought real reforms, changes and new ideas and equitable rules was Zeus/Jupiter, whereas Prometheus was a jealous, unexceptional individual following the older, established ways and traditional ideas of the Titans.
By misinterpreting the Prometheus Bound tragedy and by writing Prometheus Unbound, Shelley has likely done more harm than good, in the sense that he has recklessly distorted ancient known stories and events and he has acted irresponsibly, without caring about the veracity or the consequences of his writings.

As an additional note, according to Wikipedia, “Paul Johnson, in his book Intellectuals, describes Shelley in a chapter titled “Shelley or the Heartlessness of Ideas “. In the book Johnson describes Shelley as an amoral person, who by borrowing money which he did not intend to return, and by seducing young innocent women who fell for him, destroyed the lives of everybody with whom he had interacted, including his own.”
This is to be contrasted with the mythological tales and stories about Zeus/Jupiter, the lord of justice who gave each his due, who ‘easily humbles the proud and raises the obscure, and easily straightens the crooked and blasts the proud’ (from Hesiod’s Works and Days).
Zeus had numerous relationships with many women, but he was known for taking care of and protecting the women who birthed his children, and his offspring, from Hercules to Apollo and Perseus and others, were regarded as heroes, gods, demi-gods and founders of dynasties who were helpful and beneficial to mortals and humans. Although he sometimes had disputes with his wife Hera, Zeus knew she was his wife, the principal and most important woman for him, and he always treated her accordingly, and always managed to get along and reconcile with her.

Another peculiarity of Shelley is that in some of his writings he praised a character such as Satan from Milton’s Paradise Lost. Shelley seems to have found in Satan or the Devil a “noble” representation of the champion of the oppressed, i.e. humankind, battling against God, the omnipotent ruler, similarly to his own Prometheus against Jupiter in Prometheus Unbound.
Shelley praised the villainous or evil character in both ancient religions and in Christianity. According to Shelley, should those who read Prometheus Unbound and start expressing support or sympathy for Prometheus also express support for Satan in Christianity? Do people of Christian background, and more generally those who read Prometheus Unbound know that Shelley views Prometheus as he views the Devil/Satan, and that Shelley (directly or indirectly) expects people to sympathize for the Devil in the same way as they’re supposed to root for Prometheus? Do those who since Shelley have regarded Prometheus as a hero and who have thought (wrongly) that Prometheus was some sort of Christ-like or savior-like figure realize that Shelley also praised the Christian version of Satan and considered the Christian Devil to be a hero comparable to Prometheus? I’m not sure how to describe this kind of attitude, but it looks like the inconsistent attitude and opinion of someone who is an irresponsible show-off and boastful intellectual braggart who thinks he can mix or confuse things and mess up diverse religious and cultural interpretations without plausible reasons, someone who likes to arbitrarily turn upside down various stories, interpretations and religions, without understanding the meaning or context of these stories and the differences between them, and how some stories were often based on real historical events.

Perhaps Shelley’s attitude can be explained to a certain extent by the fact that he was someone who was leaning towards atheism and moving away from his Christian background, but he was still influenced by his Christian upbringing and the ideas of romanticism, and he interpreted incorrectly the story of Prometheus as a cruel, unfair punishment resulting in suffering. One also has to take into account that the details of the story of Prometheus became unclear or blurred with the passing of time and centuries. This does not justify however his irresponsible actions, his distortion of ancient stories, and his praising of both Prometheus an Christianity’s Satan.

To be complete one should  also consider the point of view of Euhemerism, and it’s a relevant and important one.
Euhemerism essentially states that gods were great men who were deified after their death, and seeks the source of mythology in history.
According the this view, Prometheus would appear as a man with little preparation or with limited, misused potentiality for greatness or creativity, who lived alongside a really great man who was later called Zeus or Jupiter ( he was known by other names in other places and religions too), and who by jealousy, hubris, conceit, attachment to an old established order and old ways of thinking, and by misguided actions, betrayed and tried to trick and hurt the very great man who was his contemporary. Prometheus possibly helped Zeus or worked under his supervision for a short period of time, then he stole from him by jealousy and greed and was deservedly punished for it.
As a very great man of the past, Zeus/Jupiter must have had the most advanced way of thinking, the most advanced teachings and the most advanced knowledge and ‘theories’ in the world he lived in.
I also think (and several authors or writers in the past were of this opinion) that Zeus/Jupiter was the same person as one of the first important patriarchs mentioned in the Bible, but his story was somewhat modified in order to be compatible with the religion of Moses and with monotheism. In this sense it can be said that Zeus or Jupiter has been continuously remembered, honored and revered as one of the earliest and most important patriarchs in the Bible. Perhaps I will expand and develop this idea in the future.

Sometimes a man attached to a religion or a set of rules and moral prescriptions comparable or even similar to those recommended by Christianity, and having limited abilities and living in the presence of a real great man and innovator, may by jealousy, greed, arrogance and conceit, break the rules he is supposed to be attached to, and steal from the great man he is jealous of, trying foolishly to show he is strong and brave, keeping the thing he stole to himself or in his abode, failing to do anything creative or useful with it, thus somewhat contradicting himself and proving to be worthy of being punished.
If Prometheus ought to be made the symbol of anything, then he ought to be considered as the symbol of mediocrity, envy, jealousy, greed, trickery, cheating, antis-science, anti-innovation and attachment to old traditional established ideas and to old ways of thinking and acting.

For about two centuries a number of writers have inflated the story of Prometheus and taken it in different directions. Consequently it can be said that they have been responsible of imagining, following and honoring a false idol, since they made him a symbol of things he had nothing to do with.
At times these were different and opposite ‘things’, such as being a symbol of irreligion and free thought, and being a symbol of religion more or less comparable to the founder of Christianity.

Perhaps these writers and thinkers should have taken the following guideline or principle into account:

When you don’t know the details of a (very ancient) story, or the sequence of events which caused something to take place, you should not jump into conclusions and produce speculative conjectures, project your own ideals or preconceptions on somebody, and/or make of somebody the symbol of things or qualities he has nothing to do with, especially when these conclusions and conjectures are based on uncertain and doubtful facts of the past, and when there are other facts or evidence providing more plausible and reasonable interpretations of the story or events in question.

As a consequence of all the arguments given above and in Part One of this topic, I think it is inappropriate and simply wrong to use the name of Prometheus for a series of books related to free thought and advanced cultural or philosophical subjects, because someone like Prometheus has simply nothing to do with these subjects. In fact I think it is someone with the intellect and the abilities of Zeus who would be more interested in and inclined towards reading books about advanced science, philosophy, and similar subjects .

The books and reference works I cited in my previous post about this topic are also relevant here.

I will add one more related reference work here:

The Justice of Zeus , by Hugh Lloyd-Jones .

This topic is likely to be continued in a third post.

About Zeus, Prometheus, and the punishment of the latter- Part One

At the beginning of this post I want to remark that Zeus (as well as  characters related to him) is the  name given by the ancient Greeks to ‘someone’ or to a deity who was followed or worshiped in many places  in the ancient World and around the Mediterranean region by different names . Zeus was called Jupiter by the Romans, Amon-Ra by the Egyptians , etc , and Greek mythology and religion had their origins in or were influenced by  other places or cultures: West Asia, the so-called Indo-Europeans , and most notably the Mediterranean and the Near East.

But I will generally use the Greek names since nowadays  they are the most widely known.

The story of Prometheus and the narration of his punishment  have been told and retold in different ways throughout the centuries. From Antiquity to the present , poets , writers, philosophers and various thinkers on the whole made contradictory assumptions, conjectures , explanations , extrapolations , comparisons  and conclusions related to the story of Prometheus. But if one looks closer and in depth at how the story has been told , one can find patterns or variations specific to certain periods in the telling of the story across different centuries.

The punishment inflicted by Zeus has been called by some modern authors ‘problematic’. But it would be less problematic if the facts about what happened and if the details of the story were known better. One of the difficulties is that the details of this story became unclear and imprecise with the passing of time , especially after the beginning of the Christian era.

I have read extensively about this topic, and I will try to show by using reasonable and plausible arguments based on my readings of those who wrote about this subject that the reasons for and the cause of the chastening of Prometheus have been misunderstood and misinterpreted, and his importance has been inflated and overestimated, mainly during the last two centuries .

The poet Hesiod (who lived around 750 BCE ) mentioned Prometheus in his Theogony and in The Works and Days. 

In the Theogony, Hesiod shows Prometheus as a lowly challenger of the omnipotence of Zeus and as a trickster.

In the Works and Days , Prometheus appears as the source of man’s misery. He is punished for using trickery , for stealing and breaking the law , and he is the one to blame for mankind’s fall.

It is to be noted that if the story of Prometheus has had a real earlier historical origin at its basis , then the oldest sources related to this story are usually the closest  to the actual events that took place ,  and they show what happened in a more accurate way compared to later narratives. Therefore the story as it is told by Hesiod largely presented Prometheus in his true colors more than other more recent accounts that came up later on.

There are other clues that shed light on the way Prometheus was viewed in Antiquity.

When people in Antiquity deified someone and built temples for him (or her , but here we’ll suppose it’s a man we’re talking about) , it was their way of showing and recognizing that the one they deified had done great , outstanding and important things and had a significant historical greatness and importance.
Ancient writers , such as Lucian in the second century CE , stated the fact that for centuries before and during the start of the the Christian era ( a period of probably more than two millennia) there was no temple of Prometheus to be seen.
There was an altar for Prometheus and two other Olympian gods in Athens , but according to the classical philologist Ulrich von  Wilamowitz-Moellendorff , this altar was for another deity called Promethos, who was venerated during the torchlight run ,which celebrated the god of ceramics and not the fire giver. Promethos was the patron of potters in Athens , and was associated with Hephaestus and Athena. He was the one who would have helped Zeus by splitting his skull to give birth to Athena , and would have shaped Pandora before creating human beings (under the supervision of Zeus). He didn’t steal fire and he was not punished.

A second Prometheus did the trickery and the stealing and was punished. He is the Prometheus mentioned by Hesiod and Aeschylus , and his name later on prevailed. All the preceding arguments are proof that people in Antiquity knew Prometheus didn’t have greatness or historical importance, and that he didn’t help or benefit anybody by his theft of fire. It seems these facts and observations were overlooked by the romantic writers and the philosophers or artists who praised Prometheus in the 19th century.

By the way , the  person or deity for whom the greatest and biggest temples and monuments were built in Antiquity , including a statue which was one of the seven wonders of the Ancient World , was  Zeus/Jupiter.

The ‘fire’ stolen by Prometheus from the gods was most probably ordinary fire , but if it was some important property or material or discovery belonging to Zeus and to the ‘gods’ there is not much difference in the story.
In his book Les Mémoires de Zeus (The Memoirs of Zeus) , Maurice Druon gives an explanation of what might have happened. Prometheus tried to trick Zeus before stealing the fire , and Zeus decided to punish the mortal humans by taking away fire from them , but he intended to give back fire to the humans after a few months.

In any case Prometheus didn’t want to wait for Zeus to give back fire to humans , he was jealous of the power and abilities of Zeus and tried to trick him in order to hurt him or dethrone him and make him look bad , and there is no proof or mention, especially in the writings of the original ancient authors such as Hesiod , that after he stole fire he used it in a creative , beneficial or useful way for him or for the humans around him; the only ‘quality’ of the titan Prometheus mentioned by Hesiod through the theft of fire was trickery.

Even the play Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus was misinterpreted , since the author (if it really was Aeschylus ,who showed great praise , respect and admiration for Zeus in his other plays) was using irony, and as he made Prometheus talk in the play  he intended to show him as conceited and delusional.

Prometheus could have very well played with the fire he stole (along with a number of other humans who were around him) with no useful or creative result , and after some time he let that fire die away.
What added to the confusion and misunderstanding is that the detailed facts and the sequence of events related to the theft of fire , to what happened afterwards , and to the so-called Titanomachy or war with the Titans were lost with time and are not well known.

The play Prometheus Bound was most probably written by Aeschylus ca. 415 BC (probably even earlier). It is interesting to note that at that period of time , poets and philosophers were writing works praising and honoring Zeus.

Cleanthes ( c. 330 BC – c. 230 BC) , Stoic philosopher and the successor to Zeno as the second head (scholarch) of the Stoic school in Athens, wrote a hymn to Zeus. The largest surviving fragment of Cleanthes is the portion of the Hymn to Zeus, in which he declares praise and honour of Zeus to be the highest privilege of all rational beings.

Callimachus (310/305–240 BC) was a noted poet, critic and scholar at the Library of Alexandria and enjoyed the patronage of the Egyptian–Greek Pharaohs Ptolemy II Philadelphus and Ptolemy III Euergetes. He also wrote a hymn to Zeus.

So it is improbable that at that time Aeschylus , who in all his other plays praised and extolled Zeus , could have written one play to damage and disparage the king of the gods. His  play about Prometheus was filled with irony and enveloped in irony.

For many centuries after the beginning of Christianity, and until the end of the eighteenth century, writers did not have a high opinion of Prometheus. The interest in Prometheus in the seventeenth century was from philosophers. 

Thomas Hobbes  saw the Titan as the reprovable example of political rebellion and democracy ( Hobbes thought the only pure and true source of power was monarchy).

A number of writers in the nineteenth century as well as in the twentieth thought that the Fathers of the Church made a parallel between Jesus Christ and Prometheus. In fact the Church Fathers (among them Tertullian) warned against establishing any kind of parallel between Prometheus and Jesus Christ, and described Prometheus as some sort of impostor when compared to God.

Some writers or authors tried to find or make comparisons and similarities between Hephaestus and Jesus Christ , or between Hercules and Jesus , etc. These comparisons (especially the one involving Prometheus) are far from accurate. 

Sometimes Prometheus has been compared to the character Loki in Norse mythology.Perhaps in Antiquity there was a common origin to Norse , Greek and similar mythologies which made them have some common characteristics, but it seems that Loki has been generally considered to be a bad trickster and a bad character , whereas Prometheus has been considered as a good trickster figure , this being the result of arbitrary unverified conjectures and interpretations , especially in the last two centuries.

The word Lucifer has been interpreted in different ways by different people , religions and cultures. When it was given the meaning of  ‘shining one’ , ‘morning star’ , or ‘light bringing’ , Prometheus , having stolen fire and apparently brought light, has been sometimes compared to Lucifer , adding to the unclear and contradictory comparisons made about him. Anyway if Prometheus is Lucifer , who is usually considered to be Satan or the Devil , then in this case Prometheus would have rebelled against Zeus ,who would be no other than God. So this whole unconvincing comparison is not profitable to Prometheus and does not show him in a good light.

The theory or conjecture stating that Zeus punished Prometheus hastily while he was still a new inexperienced ruler , and then with time became wiser and more just , doesn’t hold water.

First of all ,there’s a big difference if we consider that the death of Zeus’s father and the theft of fire took place at the end of the Titanomachy or at the beginning of this war (which was  won by Zeus). If the theft of fire took place after the death of Cronus and at the start of the conflict with the Titans, then this theft was an integral part of the conflict, and the punishment of Prometheus came as one of the results of winning this struggle. Zeus/Jupiter must have taken his time to try to reason with Prometheus and his father and brothers (to no avail), and he tried to observe (for a number of years during the conflict with the Titans) what Prometheus was doing with the thing he had stolen.
He must have noticed that Prometheus was playing carelessly with what he had stolen; if it was fire which was stolen , Prometheus probably kept it somewhere hidden in his house , making use of it in rudimentary uninventive ways with no creative or useful results , and when some people he knew came to his house he showed them that fire and played , danced or frolicked with them around it.

Prometheus wasn’t at all interested in benefiting humans or in innovative technology; it’s also possible that he could have obtained that fire by other means if he wanted, and humans possibly had basic or elementary  ways to make fire. These humans could have represented all existing humans , or they probably were a local group of humans living in the vicinity of Prometheus , Zeus , and their relatives.
In any case, Prometheus was envious of Zeus because he was the one who could make a really resourceful and innovative usage of fire, and by stealing fire he was trying to hurt Zeus.

If Zeus had seen that there was a good reason for or a beneficial purpose resulting from what Prometheus had done, or that there were attenuating circumstances in favor of the theft done by Prometheus , he (Zeus) would have been the first one to acknowledge it. But he must have found none.

There are two versions of what happened to the father of Zeus after he was defeated. One version says that after defeating his father , Zeus sent him to Tatarus or killed him.

Another version states that Cronus had bad and good traits, but his good qualities outnumbered his bad traits, and after Zeus helped his siblings, stood against his father and defeated him (it is best to assume this took place at the beginning of the war with the Titans) , he was reconciled with him and sent him to rule the Isles of the Blessed. Zeus surpassed his father and went beyond the abilities of his father. At the same time he  must have taken or inherited the good qualities that his father had (and also inherited good qualities from his mother), which helped him become a good and just ruler afterwards. This version of the facts is more plausible than the first one.

On the other hand , Iapetus (the father of Prometheus) had more bad traits than good ones (arrogance, limited capabilities, haughtiness); he was defeated by Zeus and ‘sent to Tartarus’ at the end of the war with the Titans. Prometheus could not go beyond the potentialities of Iapetus , he stayed in the shadow of his father, and followed the old traditional narrow-minded ways of the Titans; he had his father’s bad traits and was punished with his brothers and father by Zeus .

Not all Titans were bad or were ‘sent to Tartarus’ by Zeus. Some Titans were good , but Prometheus was not one of the good Titans  .

An example of a good (or not so bad) Titan (or Titaness) is the mother of Zeus , Rhea , and also Leto/Latona , who gave Zeus two important children: Apollo and Artemis/Diana.

When the circumstances changed and  the time was right, Herakles/Hercules freed and rescued Prometheus. Hercules did not do it in spite of his father Zeus, but according to his will and to his instructions. As Hesiod stated in the Theogony, Zeus wanted to give his son more  glory by letting him free Prometheus.
It can be rightly said that when Zeus punished Prometheus it was justice , and when he released him it was (also) justice.

In addition to books (concerning ancient mythology and religion)  I have read and mentioned in my page about religion related books  , here are some more reference works related to this post:

— Divine Commerce: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Mythology , by John Kaessner.

— A Zeus wronged by Prometheus and an Aeschylus wronged by the critics. The Compassion of Orthodoxy: The Prometheus Bound of Aeschylus , by Robert L. Houbeck, Jr. This article contains one of the best analyses I have read about the story and punishment of Prometheus.

— From Myth to Symbol. The Nineteenth-Century Interpretations of Prometheus , by Caroline Corbeau .

This topic is to be continued in another post.