Zeus the thunder god or Zeus the sky father; which came first?

[EyeofOdin]

There are two main groups of archeologist and historians who believe very different things about ancient, Indigenous religions.

The first set is the set of people who believed that all pagan, animistic and polytheistic beliefs evolved out of an ancient fear of Nature. They saw the lightning, volcanoes, earth, storms, earthquakes, the sun and moon and gave them offerings so as whoever was controlling them would leave them alone. It was a way of bribing them to insure the safety of the tribe. Regularly give the Zeus offerings so that his lightning won't come our way.

Then there's a second set of archeologists, linguists and historians who believe that it's more likely that these deities assumed their roles of leadership, protection, fertility, prosperity or chaos and the forces of Nature were either manifestations of them or symbols of them. A god of power, authority and protection was symbolized by the extreme phenomenon of Lightning. Mysterious, swift, loud, bright, powerful and, when it wants to be, destructive. A deity invoked for fertility, prosperity and wealth is like the sun, always giving and the source of the most ancient form of wealth: crops. The deities to these people were spiritual teachers and considered something crossed between authorities and friends to the practicing tribes.

It's clear that the ancient peoples, from Greeks to Nords to Egyptians to Chinese, viewed the gods in both ways. As mighty spiritual teachers, but also as something to be respected and something to be approached humbly, and sometimes even with caution.

So which came first? Deities as forces which were feared and only acknowledged when the peoples wanted to keep them happy, satisfied and at bay? Or actual spiritual teachers who were symbolized by the forces of nature the would later just be assumed to control? Also what do you think? Are the gods entities to be given offerings to that they be appeased? Or are they spiritual teachers, willing and generously available to help and guide us?

Personally, in a contemporary and historical perspective, I believe that it was a little bit of both. The ancient shamanic mind, not only does it have the aspect of a "god appeaser", but also obviously seeks a connection and a relationship, which was probably originally viewed as being two ways, whether the deity was a land spirit, a god or an ancestor.

I also take this in practice today. Lots of people say all the time "No I don't bow down to my gods, they are not greater than me blah blah blah", but in the end, they are gods. We are not. They are higher beings, and to approach them arrogantly is not only foolish, it's not respectful. If your child looks to you as an equal, either he or she doesn't have any idea how the household works or you have terrible disciplinary skills.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm going to deconstruct the dichotomy you've set up for a moment, because I think there's a common root behind both of these that may be the precursor to each. That root would be that as arrogant as some humans get, it's a matter of fact that there are forces and powers out there greater than ourselves. Part of living live involves reconciling that fact and deciding how we want to deal with it. To some, the reconciliation might involve what you discuss in your first option: paying tribute in the hopes that these higher powers will show you favor. To others, that reconciliation might involve your second option: being inspired by these higher powers as teachers and things to honor in of themselves. There are doubtless other options for dealing with higher powers than these two.

There are some other theological ideas here that bear touching on. A thread running through these two ideas as well is whether or not a deity is literally an aspect of nature (strong immanence) or some power presiding over it (weak immanence, possibly transcendence). Based on what little I've studied so far of Hellenic polytheism, it seems to me that the gods can be either. For example, the Olympians fall more in the category of transcendent gods who preside over other aspects, but these other aspects are often "lesser" gods/spirits themselves.

Those thoughts aside, the flippant attitude some Neopagans have towards the gods is a gripe of mine as well. I get that some have some major baggage from their previous religion with respect to bowing down before your gods, but if something is your greater, not doing so is... well... you put it pretty well, actually.

 

[EyeofOdin]

*Post Removed*

I'm very well aware of the origins of Zeus thanks. I actually made a thread like so under the forum "Comparative Religion" and talked about how he cognates with major world sky father deities.

That's also a bit offensive to call Zeus a "sex offender" is a bit offensive and ignorant. Yes in the myths he did get around, but that was a result of the culture and what they valued, not who the sky father is.

 

[EyeofOdin]

*Post Removed*

There is more to Zeus than his myths involving his affairs with mortals. He also is a savior who rescued the gods from damnation in his father's stomach. He saved beings considered monsters and abominations for their appearances from Tartarus, a result of the wrath of Cronos. In return they gave Zeus weapons to defeat the Titans and bring order to The Cosmos.

The Titans often represent forces of Chaos and Primitive thinking. Zeus restores order by making allies that the titans wouldn't be willing to make and bringing Justice to both sides of the Titan-Olympian war. Zeus assumes a form as a god of progressive thought in this myth, and through that not only bringing justice to the gods allied with Chronos, but also bringing liberty to his siblings and the Cyclopes, Hekatonkheires and other giants.

I would also like to add that his many affairs show his intense love for mortals and gods alike. He could have a monogamous relationship with one of the most beautiful goddesses in Olympus, but he's so overwhelmed with love and infatuation that he can't help but mate with mortal women, which says a lot about what esteem he holds mortals.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

*Post Removed*

So? Judging by the stories which portray HaShem in the Torah, he is the most genocidal, megalomaniacal, homophobic, misogynistic, and bloodthirsty deity ever thought up by man. Following your logic (that those who follow Zeus are sex offenders), 55% of the people in the world (who follow Abrahamic religions) must be pure evil. This is not the case; ergo, your argument makes absolutely no sense. An individual's opinion on a deity varies, and what might seem obvious to one individual might not be so for another. As with any other literature, sacred texts often give quite differing personality traits to deities. For example, in the example I used, the same deity who according to the Tanakh says "vehikkitam hacharem tacharim hotam lotikrot lahem berit velo techannem" (you must strike them and destroy them totally, make no treaty and show them no mercy) also says "li veahavat olam ahavtich alken meshachtich chased" (I have loved you with eternal love, therefore I have given loving kindness to you). Still you're free to interpret any text literally and form opinions thereof (I do so as well), but attacking a follower of such deity or individual is rude in my opinion.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

So? Judging by the stories which portray HaShem in the Torah, he is the most genocidal, megalomaniacal, homophobic, misogynistic, and bloodthirsty deity ever thought up by man. Following your logic (that those who follow Zeus are sex offenders), 55% of the people in the world (who follow Abrahamic religions) must be pure evil. This is not the case; ergo, your argument makes absolutely no sense. An individual's opinion on a deity varies, and what might seem obvious to one individual might not be so for another. As with any other literature, sacred texts often give quite differing personality traits to deities. For example, in the example I used, the same deity who according to the Tanakh says "vehikkitam hacharem tacharim hotam lotikrot lahem berit velo techannem" (you must strike them and destroy them totally, make no treaty and show them no mercy) also says "li veahavat olam ahavtich alken meshachtich chased" (I have loved you with eternal love, therefore I have given loving kindness to you). Still you're free to interpret any text literally and form opinions thereof (I do so as well), but attacking a follower of such deity or individual is rude in my opinion.

It's one thing to say YHWH is prone to destruction when necessary. It's another to say the stories of his exploits are all bogus in defense of a more pacifist deity.

Denying Zeus's sexual exploits (a highlight of most if not all the myths surrounding him) and claiming it's not the "true Zeus" is demeaning to the god, if not only to the person claiming it.

 

[Quintessence]

I'd just like to point out what I thought was some obvious and common knowledge that the "sexual exploits" of Zeus are a metaphor. Specifically, a metaphor symbolizing the incorporation of another culture's gods into the Hellenic umbrella.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

It's one thing to say YHWH is prone to destruction when necessary. It's another to say the stories of his exploits are all bogus in defense of a more pacifist deity.

You've missed the point I'm trying to make. At a surface level, YHWH of the Torah is an extremely, extremely evil and megalomaniacal deity, ordering massacre after massacre, flooding the world, etc. However, even in such a text, there are portions which show him as affectionate and caring. These are clearly contradictory, yet some individuals view him in the latter sense whereas others view him as the former, it depends on the devotee.

Denying Zeus's sexual exploits (a highlight of most if not all the myths surrounding him) and claiming it's not the "true Zeus" is demeaning to the god, if not only to the person claiming it.

Really, because the most common epithet of Zeus is Hellenic texts is not "whore, or rapist, or sex offender," but savior (as Διὶ τῷ σωτῆρ/Dií tó sotírias, or Zeus the savior), the second most common being counselor (βουλεύς/vouléfs). One of the Orphic Hymns even refers to Zeus as an the undefiled virgin (b3 Orphic fragment). BTW, am I the only one who finds it ironic that an individual talking about sexual deviancy calls himself "unclothed" on his title ("nir" means without and "vastra" means clothing, having a similar meaning to avastra [naked], albeit not exactly the same, just like how निर्भय/nirbhaya [without fear] isn't exactly the same as अभय/abhaya [safeness/fearlessness]). However, in saMskR^ita bhAShA, the shabda निर्वस्त्र/"nirvastra" is a visheShaNam so it can't stand alone without being modifying a noun (and inflecting respectively), so your title would technically be classified as ashuddhaMvyAkaraNam (improper grammar). Had you written निर्वस्त्रो मनुष्यः (nirvastro manuShyaH, unclothed man), then it would be proper [note that the visargasandhi turns the "अः" (aH) in निर्वस्त्रः into an ओ (o) sound in regards to the kAshikAvR^itti of aShTAdhyAyIsUtrapATha 2.3.19].

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Languages are fun. So, working with Zeus as a "spiritual teacher", what does he teach in his stories?

 

[EyeofOdin]

Languages are fun. So, working with Zeus as a "spiritual teacher", what does he teach in his stories?

This is one of the things:

"There is more to Zeus than his myths involving his affairs with mortals. He also is a savior who rescued the gods from damnation in his father's stomach. He saved beings considered monsters and abominations for their appearances from Tartarus, a result of the wrath of Cronos. In return they gave Zeus weapons to defeat the Titans and bring order to The Cosmos.

The Titans often represent forces of Chaos and Primitive thinking. Zeus restores order by making allies that the titans wouldn't be willing to make and bringing Justice to both sides of the Titan-Olympian war. Zeus assumes a form as a god of progressive thought in this myth, and through that not only bringing justice to the gods allied with Chronos, but also bringing liberty to his siblings and the Cyclopes, Hekatonkheires and other giants.

I would also like to add that his many affairs show his intense love for mortals and gods alike. He could have a monogamous relationship with one of the most beautiful goddesses in Olympus, but he's so overwhelmed with love and infatuation that he can't help but mate with mortal women, which says a lot about what esteem he holds mortals."

I said that earlier... apparently you missed it.

It also seems that Zeus is a deity who teaches hard work and self responsibility. When Herakles was so overcome with grief that he burned himself, Zeus saw how much he worked to repent from the wrongs he did in his life, so he ascended him into godhood.

We also can use Zeus as a spiritual guide through UPG, just like other deities.

 

[Quintessence]

If you want a good modern retelling of Zeus' role in Hellenic mythos and what he might have to teach you, I'd look no further than this book by George O'Connor. It's a graphic novel, and if your public library has a respectable collection you might be able to snag it there. That's where I discovered these beauties. Absolutely amazing. This guy is inspired. And by inspired, I mean that when I read these, I think he might just be directly inspired by the gods themselves.

 

[EyeofOdin]

Thank you, but I originally opened this thread to discuss if the deities were originally conceptualized as feared entities to please and keep at bay or as spirit guides manifesting in Nature and in Cosmological forces.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thank you, but I originally opened this thread to discuss if the deities were originally conceptualized as feared entities to please and keep at bay or as spirit guides manifesting in Nature and in Cosmological forces.

A professor of my wrote a book on the conceptualization of nature in antiquity. Also important is that Zeus is one of the few gods that Indo-European linguistics allows us to make inferences regarding. However, the most straightforward answer to you question is that that to the extent peoples of antiquity revered nature they did so as the conceptualized nature to have been (sort of a "garden of Eden" version of nature- one that was but is no longer).

All deities were feared. Much of religious practice revolved around placating deities. This was true of "nature" deities and forces as well. Religion in antiquity was rather centrally defined as the means with which one kept at bay the wroth of the gods and manipulated favors from them.

 

[Sees]

All deities were feared. Much of religious practice revolved around placating deities. This was true of "nature" deities and forces as well. Religion in antiquity was rather centrally defined as the means with which one kept at bay the wroth of the gods and manipulated favors from them.

I don't know a lot about ancient Greek religious views but this was not the case for Germanic, Celtic, Roman, etc. cultures/traditions. They tended to see the fear of the Divine as superstitious and stupid. In Rome it was so disliked that it was outlawed to teach/preach fear of Gods or anything supernatural in nature.

 

[EyeofOdin]

I think that it's also worth mentioning that Ancient Egyptian religion was not based on fear and pacification of the gods, but more about spiritual purity.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't know a lot about ancient Greek religious views but this was not the case for Germanic, Celtic, Roman, etc. cultures/traditions. They tended to see the fear of the Divine as superstitious and stupid. In Rome it was so disliked that it was outlawed to teach/preach fear of Gods or anything supernatural in nature.

The issue with Germanic and Celtic religious views is our lack of sources, although I would certainly say that we have more than enough evidence to determine that they feared the gods and religion was for them pretty much what it was for the Greeks. The Romans, however, left us plenty of evidence (including how the spread of Greek religion and religious ideas, cults, etc., so thoroughly permeated the Mediterranean that we have a term for it: Hellenization). It is true that things like magic were banned/illegal for the most part during the Roman empire and more so than in classical Greece. However, the reason it was had little to do with any belief that it was superstitious. The pre-Christian Romans didn't execute more witches in a single trial (twice) than in a century across all Europe during the European witch-trials because of a distaste for superstition. Same for the Germanic legal codes that the Christian Roman empire derived and enforced which prohibited the prosecution and execution of witches.

Roman religion was more thoroughly based in fear, ritual, what we would call superstition, and similar notions than Greece because like most cultures it not only treated religion as it existed prototypically (i.e., as practice not doctrine and ritual not creed), but also because of the spread and spreading variations of Hellenic cults (among others).

I put together a set of sources for those interested in credible, comprehensive, and/or authoritative (and free) online sources relating to antiquity: Free online sites for primary source material of the ancient world

It's not as comprehensive as I would like but most of the databases I have access to which relate to Germanic studies, Greco-Roman religion, etc., are sources that I have university access to but which others would have to pay for. Also, it doesn't include modern scholarship, but I would be happy to provide links about pagan religious practices or recommend sources (for Celtic religious practices, I highly recommend Hutton's The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy).