Talk:Zalmoxis

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 (ᛏ) 08:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I'm leaving here two sources (the first seems more reliable to me):
*Paliga, Sorin. "La divinité suprême des Thraco-Daces". In: Dialogues d'histoire ancienne. Vol. 20, n° 2. 1994. pp. 137-150. [DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/dha.1994.2182]
[www.persee.fr/doc/dha_0755-7256_1994_num_20_2_2182]
*Drugaş Şerban George Paul. The Name of Zalmoxis and Its Signiflcance in the Dacian Language and Religion. In: Hiperboreea. Journal of History, vol. 3, %N°2,2016. pp. 5-66. [DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/hiper.2016.914] [www.persee.fr/doc/hiper_2284-5666_2016_num_3_2_914]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5CE7:8E72:EC12:30AF:8230:EF8C (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zalmoxis 

message: 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 (ᛏ) 13:14, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: spelling in Hdt

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Egyptian Fiasco 

message: Olteanu writes :
: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)
thread_title: Read this

message: 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)
thread_title: Only true god, yadda yadda

message: This artcle should be expanded. There are not so many article about the Supreme God of Getae-Dacians Zalmoxis
And, how Zalmoxis effected his believers since Herodotus time through High Priest Deceneu and later through remnants believes
I do not know Lucian Boia. Is he more reliable just because is Romanian? Is he more reliable than Herodotus, Plato, Strabo, Iamblichus, Josephus, Eliade ?  
There is also a mistake to consider only the hostile version of the Greek of Black Sea They were Ionians as Pytagora It seems like this is the reason they compared Zalmoxis with Pytagora Even Herodotus noticed the Ionians version is not 
Zalmoxis (most likely lived before Pytagora) Some sources are saying around 713 BC He most likely received his teaching from Egypt   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blurall (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Herodotus heard some rumors (aka hearsay), that's how all the Zalmoxis story begun. In lack of a better name, we call that god Zalmoxis. The Dacians were not allowed to write, so we don't know how they called him (they had a taboo about writing). Oh, by the way, Wikipedia sides with modern scholars, i.e. WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP, thus not with historians from the Antiquity and not with the fanciful writings of pseudohistorians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion

message: This section of the article looks very dubious to me, and the references highly tendentious too.  I've just been collecting all the ancient sources, you see.  I mean, "aniconism"?  What the hell is that?  And which ancient source says so?  I would get rid of this section.  I doubt there was anything recognisable as a "Zalmoxian religion".  Roger Pearse (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zalmoxian religion 

message: What about the forms Zalmoxes, Zamolxes, Zamolxe? Some Google Books searches: Zalmoxes Dacia, Zalmoxes Thracian,Zamolxes Dacia, Zamolxes Thracian, Zamolxe Dacia, Zamolxe Thracian.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Added the Greek script as well, though I am not sure if the name Zamolxe and Zamolxes would have had "ε" or "η". Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other spellings 

message: Lactantius died before Julian the Apostate was born! I have marked this as a contradiction, but maybe someone can figure out what's going on. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a comment about this yesterday without realizing somebody had already pointed it out. Considering this obvious error has been on here with no clarification, no citation, and no revision for ten years, I think it's fair to delete it. Even if it's actually Lactantius quoting Trajan directly, without Julian as a mediator, the only place this quote shows up is this page and several blog sites and internet forums which seem to quote it verbatim from this page. Raccoon Enthusiast (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can Lactantius paraphrase Julian? 

message: Rather than create a disambiguation page, I have placed two dab hatnotes at the top of this page to accommodate the harvestman genus and the assassin bug genus.  --Bejnar (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for reverting, it appeared that the page didn't exist when you first edited so I wasn't sure if it was legitimate at the time. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Nowhere http://m.dexonline.ro/definitie/r%C3%A2vnitor claims anything about Zalmoxis, so the etymology is WP:OR, unless it can be verified in reliable sources. And I do not mean in Dacomanic press, which is by default WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Dana's PhD thesis basically says that all the "evidence" about Zalmoxis comes from Herodotus, who heard something from somebody about the Dacian religion. So, basically, it is all based upon hearsay from Herodotus, the rest is imagination (all subsequent reports got their info from him). The ferocious debate if Dacians were monotheists or polytheists should tell you that all knowledge of Dacian religion is a big load of craps. If we can't know whether they were monotheists then we don't really know anything about Dacian religion. Ancient Egyptian religion was preserved in hieroglyphs. Dacians had no writing, so the content of their religion is irretrievably lost to us. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan Dana 

message: In the etymology section, it says that Zemele is a Phrygian and Lithuanian goddess, but AFAIK those cultures have nothing to do with each other, and the page about the goddess it links to has no references to Phrygia, which is in modern day Turkey. 2601:2C4:47F:A0A0:4005:8FB1:B725:7CCC (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrygia and Lithuania? 

message: Lactantius can't possibly be providing a translation of Julian the Apostate's quotation of Trajan because Lactantius died five years before Julian the Apostate was born. This section needs a proper explanation and citation, or it needs to be deleted immediately. Raccoon Enthusiast (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lactantius, Julian the Apostate, and Trajan 

message: Can anybody find an actual reference to this scholar somewhere? He is referenced numerous times throughout the article with zero citations given. Recent scholarship on the subject seems to suggest that his theories lack historical grounding to begin with. Raccoon Enthusiast (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ioan Coman?