Talk:Zalmoxis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Comments

the link to Herodotus Histories that i added ( http://www.iranchamber.com/history/herodotus/herodotus_history_book4.php ) was more complete, the reader having the possibility to read the entire book, including info about the getae(dacians) and about that period of history -- criztu

If the reader wants to read the whole Herodotus' history, he may use the links from the article of Herodotus. This particular article is about Zalmoxis, so we link only to what's pertinent to it. Bogdan | Talk 17:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
what if the first link malfunctions, wouldn't it help to have an alternate link to it ? i specified to the reader that the paragraphs 4.93-4.96 contain Herodotus account on Zalmoxis, it also help to track down the paragraph on Zalmoxis on the net in case the iranchamber link doesn't work either -- criztu
the link won't malfuction. :-) Bogdan | Talk 20:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The variant Zamolxis is actually more common than Zalmoxis. (cf. also ro:Zamolxis). Any objections to moving the article there (now a redirect)? dab () 10:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just did it. complain if unhappy. dab () 12:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
nop, since Herodotus called him Zalmoxis, then Zalmoxis it is ... you should leave a few days for everybody to have the chance to read your intentions, then take actions Criztu 12:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ok, it's easily undone, you know. Herodotus is not the only source, though. We have, in Ancient Greek:

  • Zamolxis: 80 times (including Diogenes Laertius, Aristoteles, Strabo, Zenon, Democritus)
  • Salmoxis: 14x (including Herodotus(!), Pythagoras(!))
  • Zalmoxis: 11x (including Platon)

so, what you say is not correct. Herodotus seems to call him Salmoxis, but Hesychius quotes Hdt. as calling him Zalmoxis

<Ζάλμοξις>· τοῦτον Ἡρόδοτος (4,95) μέν φησι τοὺς περὶ τὸν Πόντον οἰκοῦντας Ἕλληνας λέγειν δοῦλον Πυθαγόρου γενέσθαι, εἶτα ἐλευθερωθέντα καὶ πλεύσαντα ἀπελθεῖν, καὶ ἀφρονεστέραν μαθόντα .

(maybe there are Hdt MS variants, I don't know). I'm trying to find references for the "foreign man" etyology: who said that? dab () 12:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

strike Pythagoras, Democritus. These are references to testimonia about them. (I am doing TLG searches, here). dab () 12:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how did Herodotus called this man originaly - Zalmoxis or Salmoxis, from the translations on the net he appears as Zalmoxis ... the other ancient writers just quoted/cited Herodotus, or used their own sources in spelling the name of Zalmoxis ? in case the others just misquoted Herodotus, then wouldn't Herodotus' version be prefferable ? Criztu 13:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
as far as i can speculate(not based on actual science), Zal Moxis could have some connection to either Moesia or Moses, "moshë" means "age" in albanian, and "mos" (read 'mosh' like in jewish Moshe Dayan) means "old man" in romanian... Zal from Zalmoxis could be related to either Saul or romanian nominative for God - "Zeul" from Deus or Zeus Criztu 13:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
well, at least Zeno may be independent. you need a critical edition of Hdt. to figure out the exact situation, translations are just, well, translations. Anyway, I don't mind if you move it back, it's not an important point imo, all variants are attested. Your hebrew etymology seems pulled out of thin air (why hebrew?). Zalmoxis is just the Greek form, cf. Artaxerxes, Amenophis, Psammetichus etc., so we need an etymology for either zalm- or zamol-. The -oxis is probably just a greek stem. Romanian Zeul has probably no connection either, being just a continuation of latin deus. But it may be worth looking into, you'd need a Romanian etymological dictionary for that. Hes. seems to call the god Salmoxis. It's difficult to say what Hdt. really wrote (we don't have his original text, you know), but if Aristotle and Strabo have Zamolxis, there is a good chance this is 'correct'. But it seems Salmoxis is the spelling in Hdt. editions. Zalmoxis is spurious, but it's in Plato, so I suppose it's also respectable. They are just variants of the same name. dab () 14:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
yep, just as a speculation; ZalMoxis was a freed slave from Egypt (long before Pythagora's times) who taught his people (the getae) that the soul is immortal, kinda' like Moses - another interesting info is the legend (writen by the monks from XIIIth century in Transylvania) of Almos(read 'aal-mosh') who led his people from enslavement of the khazars, into the promised land of Pannaan(aka Pannonia). There were some biblical (N.T.) passages pointing to the rightiousness of the Scythians among barbarians when it came to religion. http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/scythian.html ... -- Criztu 14:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

also, why is he categorized as an 'oracle'? I think there is no explanation of this in the article. dab () 13:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] variants

Criztu, what I have said above refers to the 'standardized' TLG texts. They have no critical apparatus. If you want to make statements as to which author uses which variant, you have to get editions of the texts that include critical apparatus. You need to understand that the manuscript situation is in most cases very complicated (not in Hesychius' case though). There may be lots of different manuscripts, with different variants. You have to find information on this, otherwise you will not be able make the kind of statement you just made. dab () 17:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herodotus seems to call him Salmoxis, but Hesychius quotes Herodotus as calling him Zalmoxis. In later ancient writings the name Zamolxis appears more frequent. - you mean this statement ?
Let's put it in order:
  • how did Herodotus called Zalmoxis as: Salmoxis, Zalmoxis or Zamolxis ? what is the variant accepted as for how did Herodotus called him in ~450 BC ?
  • which ancient writer wrote about Zalmoxis, without quoting Herodotus ? and how did they call him ? Criztu 17:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have explained this above: It's a complicated question. If you want to know, go to a library and find a critical edition of Herodotus. This is not something you can just find out with google. dab () 18:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
then on what criteria do you conclude that Zamolxis should be the name of the article, and not Zalmoxis ? only on the frequency of Zamolxis in "standardized" TLG texts, which you say they don't have critical apparatus ? Criztu 22:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zalmoxis

In the earlier sources, we find the forms Zalmoxis and Salmoxis. In later sources, we find 'Zamolxis' much more often. The explanation is simple: 'Zamolxis' is a corruption of the correct spelling, which was either Salmoxis or Zalmoxis, according to pronunciation. There was a Getic King named Zalmodegikos, and this is yet another indication that Zalmoxis is the correct form. The article should not reflect which name "occurs more" in later writings, but which form is more likely to be the original form. I don't know whether Db changed the spelling because he was taken aback by Criztu's explanation of the name found on his User page (>no comment) but that is not reasonable grounds to change the article to 'Zamolxis'. The Perseus Digital Library, which is quite critical and does compare manuscripts (though it does not usually give the variant versions on its site, they are taken into account and considered), gives Salmoxis as the spelling in its Greek text of Herodotus' History. Zalmoxis or Salmoxis should be the name of the article.

Other issues: the Euhemeristic version of Zalmoxis (a version spread by Pontic Greeks) is a late addition to the myth-cycle, and I agree with Herodotus that Zalmoxis originally was a (Daco-)Getic god, a sky god associated with the afterlife and the underworld in his function as a god of the dead, as in ancient Greece we find Zeus Ouranios and Zeus Chthonios. Zalmoxis was no more based on an actual man than Zeus was based on an actual man. Zalmoxis has nothing to do with Moses and nothing to do with Hebrew. Euhemerism was an intellectual fad that gripped the Greeks in the classical and post-classical period, as the old myths became less beleivable, so they had to rationalize them. Alexander 007 07:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The interpretation given by late writers such as Diogenes Laertius (ca 200-500 ad)is spurious, and is based on a south Thracian word (Zalmos, Zelmas=skin, hide, leather) that has nothing to do with Zalmoxis the ancient Daco-Getic god (not a man, as Diogenes believed). The name did not mean "Leather" or "Bear-skin". And even if his interpretation were correct, it could not literally have meant 'bear-skin': only 'skin' or 'hide' or 'leather' would be possible, because in his scenario the name would be formed from 'zalmos' or 'zalmon' or 'zelmas', and the rest of the name would be a suffix (zalmo-xis), so there is no 'bear' in the name, and that is impossible. You beleive Diogenes at your own risk. Alexander 007 08:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sure, I agree it's not a matter of counting TLG hits, if we have better evidence. I have no problem with Zalmoxis. But the Perseus digital library is not 'very critical'. Critical means 'including MS variants'. Would be nice to have an explanation why Zamolxis became more common. I'll try to find a critical edition of Herodotus and get back to you. dab () 08:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The simplest explanation, and probably the correct explanation is: Zalmoxis is more of a tongue-twister than 'Zamolxis', which rolls off more easily (compare 'zamol', which rolls easily, to 'zalmo'; it is harder to remember to place that 'l' before the 'm', and the tongue wants to place it after the 'm'). So, gradually Zalmoxis/Salmoxis became corrupted to 'Zamolxis', and since these writers were foreigners (not Daco-Getians), they had no idea they were mispronouncing (and misspelling) the name---and they probably would not have thought that it made any difference. Though it actually makes a very big difference. Alexander 007 08:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

mmm.. i find it even harder to pronounce "l" before "x"... who knows, perhaps the ancients found it harder to pronounce "l" before "m" :) Criztu 08:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zamolxis rolls off easier for me. The 'l' can be run into the 'x', as in English 'folks', the 'l' often being run into the 'ks' sound (so that folk and yolk rhyme with foke and yoke: folksis>foxis). So that makes it flow even smoother. Though Zamolxis flows smoother, that has no relevance: the forms that become more common in later times are the forms that are easier to pronounce, whether or not they are correct. Alexander 007 09:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i was thinking at Dalm(atia) and Palm(yra), or Sarm(atia) and Sarm(isegetusa), or the romanian words "palmas", "talmaci", "balmaji", "calma", or "zarghit", "sarmos", "carmaci", "frumos"(from 'formosus')

Criztu 09:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To the Dacians, pronouncing Zalmoxis was no problem, because they grew up with that pronunciation. I was referring to non-Dacians, non-Getians, specifically to Greeks: they probably would have inclined towards Zamolxis. And the manuscripts show that indeed over time that's how they inclined. I have no problem pronouncing 'Zalmoxis' because I accentuate Zalm-. Yet if I compare the two, I see that 'Zamolxis' is smoother: that's what I was saying. I wasn't saying '-alm' is a rare form, because it is not rare if you search in a large sample of languages: I'm saying it is a form that was easily mutated.

One more issue: though Zalmoxis and Salmoxis are just about equally correct, 'Salmoxis' is too unfamiliar, so the name of the article should be Zalmoxis. Alexander 007 10:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just what is wrong with Zamolxis? We don't know its 'later', it might just as well be equally old. It was the common spelling in Antiquity, and it is still common (with about the same number of google hits as Zalmoxis). Is there some secret reason why you are opposed to Zamolxis? I really don't care too much, it just seems to be the preferable spelling, all things considered. dab () 08:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, to make both parties happy, we can rename the article to Salmoxis. Alexander 007 10:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] spelling in Hdt

ok, I have a critical edition of Hdt now (Rosen, 1987). It turns out the manuscripts have all readings, Zalmxoxis, Samolxis and Zamolxis. Which variant appears in a translation is the choice of the editor. We have no way of knowing which was the actual form written by Herodot himself. The majority of MSS have Salmoxis, though.

We have:

S Cantabrigiensis Sancroftianus coll Emmanuelis gr 30
T Laurentianus plut. LXX 6
M Mutinensis Estensis 221

IV.94f.: S: Zalmoxis; M Samolxis, Zamolxis; T Zamolxis;

The MS history is very complicated, and there is no obvious way to judge reliability. It seems we have two choices: Either move to Salmoxis, the most probable Hdt form, or to Zamolxis, the classical standard form. dab () 13:14, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Salmoxis is fine by me. Alexander 007 01:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Egyptian Fiasco

The "he travelled to Egypt" idea is a gag that was over-used by the Greeks. Every philosopher of the day was alleged to have "travelled to Egypt" whether they actually did or not: Pythagoras, Plato, and so on, ad nauseum. Of course, the gods also joined the trip: Dionysus is said to have went there with a bottle of wine in hand. Alexander 007 08:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Read this

Olteanu writes [1]:

In cele mai multe si mai bune izvoare antice in care apare, numele acestui zeu esta insa scris Zalmoxis, de la o tulpina zalmo-, pentru care de altfel opteaza si majoritatea tracologilor.

---He not only rejects the alleged "*zamol" etymology, he also states that Zalmoxis is considered to be correct by the majority of Thracologists, and probably related to the Thracian word for hide. Alexander 007 09:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Is there any chance the name 'Zalmoxis' and 'Moesia' might be related ? -- Lucian.

[edit] Only true god, yadda yadda

Several of the claims this article makes are extremely dubious: that he was "the only true god" is a statement contested by most mainstream historians (so is Eliade's account), and so are several details presented as reliable here - see for example Lucian Boia, Romania: Borderland of Europe, 2001, p.37. The arguments about the etymology should be sourced, as should the quotes from the classics, and the kurgan issue needs to be detailed in the text - just who is it that claims the naked angry man is Zalmoxis? Concerning the amount of bullshit that has been produced about Zalmoxis and the Dacian religion, this article is surprisingly coherent, but it needs to clarify these issues. Dahn 13:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)