Talk:Mysteries of Isis

Query

Detail of the medallion in Brescia (Museo di Santa Giulia), Alexandrian, ? late 3rd century

Epic stuff, which should be a shoe-in for GA & indeed FA. I remember when writing gold glass that this famous piece, by later Christian tradition said to represent the pious empress and Gothic queen Galla Placida (died 450) and her children, in fact shows an unknown, probably Alexandrian, woman who was probably a devotee of Isis because of the knot on her mantle. Was this just an Egyptian thing? Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod: Ah, the Isis-knot. The knotted mantle was an Egyptian style of dress that originated at some point in the Late Period. In the Ptolemaic period, goddesses, queens, and ordinary women could all be depicted wearing it—it's not exclusive to worshippers of Isis. The fundamental source is "Not the Isis Knot" by Robert S. Bianchi, Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 2 (1980). Naturally, Ptolemaic statues of Isis often showed her with the knotted mantle, so people outside Egypt, once her cult had diffused, regarded it as her dress. Women in places like Greece were often shown wearing it, but outside Egypt the dress only appears on women with some connection to the Isis cult (Bianchi, "Images of Isis and Her Cultic Shrines Reconsidered", in Bricault, Versluys, and Meyboom (eds.), Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman World, 2007, p. 494). There are enough of these images that the women probably weren't all priestesses. Elizabeth Walters, in Attic Grave Reliefs that Represent Women in the Dress of Isis (1988), p. 56, says they were initiates, but given how limited in scope the mystery rites may have been, as this article notes, I wonder if they might just be devotees. In any case, in an image from Alexandria it isn't really safe to say that a woman with the knotted mantle has any particular connection to the Isis cult. Not in the Ptolemaic period, at any rate; I don't know whether fashions may have changed by the third century AD.

As for FAC, I may not actually bother with it. I've been planning for years to rewrite Isis and Hathor and put them through FAC, and I'm still sticking to that plan. Isis has been hell to rewrite, but I have all the sources I need (1), so it should be possible to finish the more-than-half-written version I have on my computer. Sometime. This article just sort of happened as an extension of the Isis rewrite. For some reason, possibly sheer bloody-mindedness, I prefer to send the big and difficult articles through the FAC wringer and let side topics like this one just be GAs.

Incidentally, there's a shorter subarticle I plan to write, on the metaphor and artistic motif of Isis's veil. It won't be GA-worthy, but you might be interested in reading it once it's made. A. Parrot (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I should change my note there then. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mysteries of Isis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 22:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Hopefully I'll manage to read through and provide some initial comments by tomorrow evening (GMT). (You've been waiting patiently for three months now; you can hold out another 24 hours!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've given the article a first read through. In general, it looks good. The writing is clear and concise, the article seems to be thorough, it's extensively cited.

I have two minor copyediting comments:

1. In the first paragraph of the lead, the article has "the mysteries did allude to beliefs from ancient Egyptian religion, in which Isis arose". This reads a little awkwardly to my ear; I would rather say something like "the mysteries did allude to beliefs from ancient Egyptian religion, where the worship of Isis arose".

I changed it to "in which the worship of Isis arose." It doesn't feel entirely natural to use "where" when ancient Egyptian religion isn't a place. A. Parrot (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"in which the worship of Isis arose" is probably better, yes. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

1. In the section on "Connection with the afterlife", the article refers to "their traditional religion". It sounds to me that this is referring to both Greek and Roman traditional religious practices as a traditional religion; it is my understanding that while the Romans did adopt Greek gods/associate their gods with Greek ones, their religions were actually significantly different. Perhaps writing "in both Greek and Roman traditional religion" would be clearer. This is fairly nitpicky, though...

Done. A. Parrot (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The only other place where the prose is at all unclear is where the article quotes Griffiths' translation of Apuleius on the initiation rituals. Specifically, the sentence which reads "At dead of night I saw the sun flashing with bright effulgence."

1. Should this be "At the dead of night", or is this correct? I don't have Griffiths' translation to check, but "At the dead of night" seems like it would be more correct English to me.
2. I don't think I have ever seen the word "efflugence" used in English before, and while its meaning was clear to me from context, it might not be so much so for other readers. Is their a clearer translation that could be used? (For instance, the Kline translation linked in the further reading section renders the same sentence as "I have seen the sun at midnight shining brightly") If Griffiths is the translation to use, though, so be it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd been using Griffiths because it was the only full translation of Book 11 that I had when writing. (I found the Kline webpage pretty late.) The standard academic translation now seems to be J. Arthur Hanson in 1989, which I should be able to obtain soon. Alvar quotes Hanson's rendition of this same passage, and it is easier to read. I've substituted Hanson's version and cited it as "J. Arthur Hanson, quoted in Alvar 2008" until I can obtain Hanson myself. A. Parrot (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That does look like an easier to read translation, yes. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, with that out of the way:

• I am now happy with the prose, which is eminently readable.
• The article seems to comply with the relevant MOS policies.
• The article is thoroughly referenced, and to impeccable sources: I'm certainly not going to argue with Burkert on mystery cults!
• There are no obvious gaps in the article, and it remains focused on the subject. Where it talks about the Eleusinian and Dionysian mysteries, the relevance is clear.
• There doesn't seem to have been any dispute about the neutrality of the article.
• The article is stable.
• Images are all public domain, and captions are all fine.

I think this article passes the Good Article criteria with flying colours; the only question in my mind is whether or not you are going to put it up against the scrutiny of the featured article people. Congratulations! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto: Thank you very much! I now think I'll take it to FAC someday, when I've been able to research a little more in depth and answer some questions I have in my own mind. For the moment, though, I have bigger fish to fry. Thank you again. A. Parrot (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Article Listing

The attitude reflected in some of the main contributions to the article is problematic.  It is made clear in a statement on the FA candidate page according to which "Greco-Roman mystery initiations dedicated to an ancient Egyptian goddess [...] seem to be indirectly responsible for the vague pop-cultural impression that ancient Egyptian religion was something secretive and mystical".  

I can attest (and ample literature supports) that the attitude is misguided.  One could assume that contributions to the article were made in good faith and claim that it is unclear whether previous contributors demonstrated bias or delusions.  While the article holds some value in that it strives to document ancient rites, its Greco-Roman supremacy tone is unwarranted and in its current state it certainly should not "exemplify Wikipedia's best work".  I support downgrading it from being listed as a good article, on the basis that it should not be considered stable.

It appears that with topics remotely or closely related to Ancient Egypt on Wikipedia, efforts have been made to impose content and article stability by seeking to discourage the contributions of other editors, censor them (e.g. by precipitously archiving their contributions to talk pages) and involve the support of administrators.  I believe the behavior should be denounced regardless of the Wikipedia members involved, and content associated with its manifestation should especially not be considered stable. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have the reliable sources with which to challenge the article's content, provide them. A. Parrot (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

For now, and before any WP:RELIABLE sources are introduced (as you kindly suggest), it would seem more appropriate to,

(1st) seek clarifications around the statement of WP:ORIGINAL research on the FA candidate page (mentioned above) and other such statements which can be found within the article and then,

(2nd) assess the representation (or WP:POVFORK serving misrepresentation) of sources currently featured in the article.

Perhaps then, WP:RELIABLE criticism of sources currently featured in the article can be introduced and maybe after that other more fundamentally relevant WP:RELIABLE sources.

To begin with the title and the semantics of the first few sentences of the article, the Initiation subsection of the article dedicated to the ancient Egyptian religion goddess Isis redirects to the present article as the main article. I'm wondering if the Mysteries of Isis title encompasses or directly intends to refer to the mystery religions associated with Isis and/or the Isis cult. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence, "The mysteries of Isis were religious initiation rites performed in the cult of the goddess Isis in the Greco-Roman world." seems clear enough. Isis certainly does not redirect here, and covers what is known about Isis in Egyptian religion, if that is your concern. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Johnbod. Thank you for your comment. In relation to the behavior I described above, previously I have been accused by an administrator of commenting too much ("talking the hind leg off a donkey"). When requested, clarifications about the statement were unanswered. After the statement was further characterized as a warning and used as justification for blocking, the administrator responsible claimed that clarifications were not provided previously because the page had been blanked. The reason seemed odd to me : as far as I can tell blanking pages does not prevent further commenting. That being said, it appears the administrator dismissed the possibility of further explanation and ended statements with "Please don't ping me again".

Fortunately, a second administrator felt it was necessary to substantiate the first administrators' statements. The second administrator supported the statements by citing that my contributions showed 50 edits on a single page. While clarifications were not provided when requested (by either administrator), the instance seemed particularly biased and unfair. On the single page the second administrator was referring to, I answered comments from several editors at once. Indeed, if an individual editor answers comments from more than one editor at once, a greater number of edits from the individual editor should be expected. Therefore, and whatever the good faith or intentions of the administrators involved, I believe it would be preferable to avoid such unfortunate, biased and unfair situation from recurring.

As such, I believe it would be useful firstly if Johnuniq could comment on the maximum frequency (# edits on a single page/time) allowed per editor which, if exceeded, apparently warrants administrative measures. Then all editors involved in the present discussion can equally abide by, and equally be held accountable to the frequency of their editing on a single page. Similarly, and again to avoid biased and unfair scenarios, I would personally prefer to discuss with a single editor at a time (as eager as I am to address your comment). If this is not possible, then once again I believe commenting limits (which are enforced, according to Johnuniq) should be explicitly specified before the discussion can proceed further. Thank you again for your comment and for your understanding. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no fixed limit for how many edits you can make to a talk page, and while I can't speak for Johnuniq, it seems clear to me that his comment was meant to express how extreme your verbosity continued to be even after Bishonen warned you, not to indicate that you had reached some kind of numerical limit. The relevant advice is at Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, which both Bishonen and I pointed out to you. Reply concisely and without repeating yourself, and you won't face the same problems.

In making the FAC nomination statement, I was expanding slightly beyond what the article itself says in order to demonstrate the significance of the topic (because I suspect the general impression of Egyptian religion created by Jean Terrasson's Sethos hung around even after it and most of the stories that imitated it were forgotten), but that's not that unusual in nomination statements (here is a rather extreme example). But it's not article text and not something I could retract if I wanted to, so what's relevant here is the article itself. Greco-Roman mystery cults have attracted a great deal of scholarly attention, and I've pulled together those sources to the best of my ability. As the first section of the article states, the mysteries of Isis may have had precedents in Egyptian religion, e.g., in whatever consecration ceremonies there were for priests. But there is no sign in Egyptian texts that there were initiations that anybody could apply for, and the mystery rites as described by Apuleius, in the only description we have, bear clear similarities to the Greek Eleusinian mysteries and were apparently modeled upon them. None of the reliable sources dispute those two points. A. Parrot (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: In response to your ping, I am going to provide some strong advice. Typically that would be done at your talk which you would blank. Instead I'm doing it here for input from others on whether I am misreading the situation. However, this side discussion should not continue for long as this page is for the discussion of actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources.

The OP (original post = comment at top dated 00:24, 27 March 2021) is a borderline WP:NOTFORUM violation. What text in the article is wrong or misleading? What text should be added to correct imbalances? What changes are you proposing? What reliable sources would you use?

Article history shows no recent edits apart from your change with unexplained edit summary "removed POV content". Stop talking about behavior and administrators and other stuff because it distracts from the purpose of this page and forces other editors to either waste time wading through off-topic text or abandon the article. You must focus on article content on article talk pages or be sanctioned for wasting the time and energy of the few editors willing to maintain articles like this. It's fine for you to make one response to this here. After that, you must not mention anything other than actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources. If you don't know what should be done, make one request for others to fix a problem that you identify and move on. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I am grateful for your advice and comments, albeit unsolicited and unrelated to the question I asked, and also for striving to remain transparent and responding here to my important question which was already answered by the editor above (there is no fixed limit for how many edits I can make to a talk page). It appears the editor above was able to begin answering my original proposal in spite of your concerns. If you don't mind, beyond the question that was asked and for the reasons I described I will now seek interactions relating to article content with a single editor at time. Thank you again kindly for your response. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It was totally solicited, by you: "As such, I believe it would be useful firstly if Johnuniq could comment on the maximum frequency (# edits on a single page/time) allowed per editor ...." Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: I assessed the WP:BLUD claim previously and I stand behind my description of the behaviors I observed and denounced. Thank you very much for seeking to address my comment. As I expressed, I believe that without excessive and unnecessary involvement, the discussion can remain focused on content and meaningful contributions (as it should).

Concerning clarifications around the statement on the FA candidate page, I believe that what you describe as expanding slightly beyond, actually permeates in other statements (which I began correcting) throughout the article and is precisely the issue. It makes for awkward phrasing throughout, and the representation of sources and some of the generalizations derived from them should be carefully scrutinized (I intend to provide specifics in the order I suggested). I obtained a copy of Sethos and I can browse through it to understand your reference. For now, my concerns are more fundamental (1st bullet above). Specifically, the mystery religions (Isis) and/or the Isis cult represent terminology that has been used with consistency in encyclopedic literature. Their geographical origin can be very explicit (hint: not Greco-Roman, or simply having Egyptian "precedents") and is often included in the terminology itself. I am not asking whether the first sentence of the article is clear (which is subjective). I am asking objectively whether the title, Mysteries of Isis, encompass or directly intends to refer to the mystery religions (Isis) and/or the Isis cult. If it does, the geographical origin should be very explicit in the first few sentences of the article (thereby dismissing all statements of WP:ORIGINAL research within and outside the article according to which there is such a thing as "a vague pop-cultural impression that ancient Egyptian religion was something secretive and mystical"). If it does not, then the title should be rephrased perhaps entirely. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: The title does not refer to Isis's cult, but to a ritual or group of rituals within that cult that conformed to the pattern of Greco-Roman mystery rites. The sources all use that terminology. The rites' place of origin is not known, though at least one scholar (Alvar 2008) suggests Alexandria while two others (Pakkanen 1996 and Bremmer 2014) seem to favor Greece. The sources agree, however, that the mysteries originated as the cult of Isis was Hellenized by contact with Greek culture, a process that began in the late fourth century BC in the wake of Alexander's conquest of Egypt. The article already states all that explicitly. A. Parrot (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you yes, therefore the title (and content) is highly problematic and poorly phrased. For example, I can refer you to a passage of the following article and section: "Comparative study shows parallels between these Greek rituals and similar systems—some of them older—in the Near East. Such cults include the mysteries of Isis and Osiris in Egypt". Perhaps, the title of the present article should be much more specific, or the scope of the article broadened (the latter of which I would favor, if the title should be maintained). Also according to your own admission, the mystery cult of Isis was Hellenized. Indeed, the statement (and related statements) implying that the secretive and mystical aspects of Egyptian religion are "a vague pop-cultural impression" is pure fantasy. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I see. The assertion in the Eleusinian Mysteries article is based on a book about the history of Freemasonry published in 1914 by a Baptist minister, Joseph Fort Newton. It is not reliably sourced, and therefore I have removed that sentence. (The article on Newton says it's regarded as a good history of Freemasonry, which it may be, but the scholarly study of mystery rites has advanced dramatically since 1914, as has the study of just about everything in ancient religion, so even if Newton's research was decent for its time, it's not reliable now.) The cults of non-Greco-Roman origin that developed mystery rites did so only after spreading into, or being absorbed into, the Greco-Roman cultural sphere, as stated, for example, in these sources.

• Alvar 2008, p. 10: "My focus… is upon those cults that, originating in the eastern Mediterranean, underwent a thorough-going transformation in the process of adapting themselves to Hellenistic-Roman culture, in particular by assimilating features characteristic of the grand mysteries celebrated from time immemorial at Eleusis… The originally Phrygian cult of Cybele and Attis, and the Egyptian cult of Isis, Osiris and Serapis in particular conform to this model."
• Burkert 1987, p. 40: "Modern scholars agree that there were initiation rites for priests at various levels in Egypt, and there were secret rites in which only the higher priests were allowed to participate, but there were no mysteria of the Greek style, open to the public upon application."
• Miguel John Versluys, "Orientalising Roman Gods" in Panthée: Religious Transformations in the Roman Empire, 2013, p. 254: "It is remarkable as there were no 'mysteries' (in the Greek sense of the term) of Isis in Pharaonic Egypt itself; this aspect of Isis clearly is an 'invention' that has to be located in the Greek and Hellenistic world. For the coming into being of Isis as a mystery goddess it is, moreover, the Eleusinian tradition that has provided the example." A. Parrot (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: While your focus on the source and your immediate dismissal of it further demonstrates bias (I do not share your conclusion), the assertion in the Eleusinian Mysteries article is supported by modern encyclopedic literature. Therefore, I have reverted your removal of the sentence. Versluys and Alvar's views do not reflect the non-fantasy, historically consistent and consensus view that Eastern mystery religions and cults were forerunners to the Hellenized versions. Furthermore, Burkert does not support your POV pushing. That "Modern scholars agree that there were initiation rites for priests at various levels in Egypt, and there were secret rites in which only the higher priests were allowed to participate" is completely at odds with implying that the secretive and mystical aspects of Egyptian religion are "a vague pop-cultural impression". Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: It would be helpful if you could quote the passage you're citing, but specialist sources are preferred over generalist encyclopedias. What you call the "non-fantasy, historically consistent and consensus view" is not the consensus of the numerous specialist sources upon which this article and the Isis article are based. It hasn't been the "consensus view" for decades. But Johnuniq's question remains: what exactly do you want to change about this article? A. Parrot (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: Your suggestion that WP:PROFRINGE from single authors is preferred over matter expert peer-reviewed encyclopedic mainstream content in the context of an encyclopedia is risible, as is the notion that mystery religions (Isis) and the Isis cult "are only known to have developed mystery rites after coming into contact with Greco-Roman culture". Pulling several WP:FRINGE theories together and passing WP:RELIABLE sources as supporting WP:FRINGE (as you have with Burkert above) and WP:ORIGINAL research does not create a new, separate consensus (what non-sense) it creates a WP:POVFORK. The current discussion is not about Isis (perhaps, it is equally replete with WP:FRINGE and should also be delisted). Here are a few passages from the peer-reviewed encyclopedic, non-fantasy, historically consistent and consensus view (from the Encyclopedia of psychology and religion).

• Paul Larson, Initiation, p. 874: "Among the oldest initiatic groups are the mystery religions of classical antiquity. In Greece the most popular initiatic group was the Eleusian mysteries, into which Plate was admitted. The rites of Dionysos, Orpheus and others flourished as well as mystery religions from Egypt (Isis), Syria (Cybele and Attis)."
• Jeffrey B. Pettis, Mystery Religions, p. 1240: "mystery religions in Egypt (Isis) and the Levant (Cybelle and Attis) came to be very influential in Roman times "
• Alane Sauder-MacGuire, Osiris and the Egyptian Religion, p. 1269: "In classical antiquity Osiris’s fame spread outside of Egypt through the writings of Plutarch and Apuleius among others. In fact, the myth of Osiris became the basis of a religion of salvation widely practiced in the ancient world."
• Kathryn Madden, Transfiguration, p. 1817: "Many of the mystery religions and cults contemporary to the writing of the gospel literature had existed for centuries. Mostly they were of Eastern origin before Hellenized. The mystery cult of Cybele, the Great Mother, had come from Asia, the cult of Isis and Osiris from Egypt"

The current edition of the Encyclopedia was published 2020 (it is one year old). To answer your question ("what exactly do you want to change about this article?"), I outlined the appropriate steps towards modifications. We are beginning to address the 1st bullet. WP:RELIABLE and the most recent sources WP:AGE MATTERS confirm that the article title (and its content) is highly problematic and poorly phrased, and should be rephrased perhaps entirely. Also as the section heading highlights, I believe that an article whose scholarship falls apart at its very title is not a GA and should be delisted. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Alvar and Versluys are anything but "fringe". Versluys is one of the foremost scholars studying the Greco-Roman cult of Isis, and Alvar specializes in the cults that spread from the Near East and Egypt into the Greco-Roman world. And still more sources can be listed.

• Pakkanen 1996, p. 75: "The cult of Isis developed into a mystery cult, as it may be called, during Roman times."
• Bommas 2005, p. 11 (translated by User:Ermenrich): "The three conditions that are necessary in order to be able to speak of mysteries are: initiates, their transformation, and their nearness to the god. In Egypt, these three points never occur together. From that it is necessary to conclude, the there were concepts of secret and hiddenness, not, however, of mystery, even if examples of arcane learning and guild knowledge, the learning of which sometimes required initiations, can surely come very close to the classical term of the mystery. However, this was enough to help give birth to 'Egyptian mysteries' in the Hellenistic period."
• Pachis 2010, p. 67: "Only later, with the beginning of the Imperial ages, does the ritual of Isis' cult acquire a mystery form."
• Bremmer 2014, p. 116: "If the Isis Mysteries are indeed relatively recent – as they must be, as they are hardly attested before the second century AD – we must ask: where did the priests get their ideas as they constructed this new ritual of the Isis Mysteries? The most plausible answer seems to be: from their own rituals and other Mysteries. The obvious candidates in the latter respect are of course the Eleusinian Mysteries and the Mysteries of Samothrace, the most prestigious Mysteries of the period, but the priests may also have considered Dionysiac Mysteries. At the same time, they had their own Isiac rituals in their own Isiac temples – rituals and architecture that must have contributed to the bricolage of the initiation. The existing rituals derived from the priests' own Egyptian tradition, but they had also been adapted to the Greek and Roman world."
• Veymiers 2020, p. 126 (machine translation): "These 'mysteries of Isis' designate the Isiac adaptation of ritual practices of Greek origin, implying, like what took place around Demeter and Kore in Eleusis, an individual initiation leading to a change of state".

Out of the quotations you provide above, they are very general and somewhat ambiguous: they say the mystery cults were "from" Egypt et al., and undoubtedly the cults were from those places even if the mystery aspect of those cults weren't. Only Pettis seems to be specifically suggesting the mysteries of Isis were "in Egypt" (and even that wouldn't contradict an origin in Alexandria). More importantly, those sources don't trace the evidence for the mysteries' origins in detail as Pakkanen, Bommas, and Bremmer do. They're not nearly enough to overturn the scholarly consensus that this article reflects: the mysteries drew upon genuine Egyptian traditions but only attained the characteristic form of Greek mystery rites after being influenced by those performed at Eleusis. A. Parrot (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The 2020 peer-reviewed encyclopedic quotations are remarkably clear (verbatim, as a matter of fact), that the mystery religions (Isis) and the cult of Isis were from Egypt, and they were of Eastern origin before Hellenized. Your own Bommas' quotation (much like Burkert's) does not support your view and outright dismisses the WP:ORIGINAL research notion on the FA candidate page and permeating the article according to which there is only "a vague pop-cultural impression that ancient Egyptian religion was something secretive and mystical".

More to the point, selectively quoting Pakkanen, Pachis and Bremmer, and inconspicuously using Hellenistic age semantics in isolation (the term "mystery") towards WP:PROFRINGE is highly problematic. Neither Pakkanen, Pachis or Bremmer supports the view that the Isis cult and Isis mysteries rites are not from Egypt (on the contrary). I can quote them more fully as part of the GA reassessment. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

There are many more issues with the present article than the ones I have shared thus far. I was hoping the issues I already shared could be quickly addressed. The early responses I received were not reassuring (quite the opposite). I intend to initiate a detailed individual reassessment of the GA status of the article and resume discussions in the near future when I find time (sometime next week at the earliest). Thank you for your early feedback. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Since you're so hung up on my nomination statement, I'll try to explain what I meant to convey by it. If you ask somebody today "What did people do in the ancient Egyptian religion?", I think the answers you're most likely to get, assuming you get any, are something about funeral rites, something about magic, and something about secretive rituals. I actually had this experience once; when I mentioned to an acquaintance that I was writing about ancient Egyptian religion, the first thing he said was "Some of it was kinda secret, wasn't it?", and it was clear he knew very little about it, so he wasn't thinking of priestly consecration ceremonies or the netherworld books. But if you asked an ancient Egyptian "How do Egyptians interact with the gods?" ("religion" wouldn't translate, because the behaviors that we'd categorize as religion weren't put in a single category in the ancient Egyptian worldview), he might say "The priests in the temples offer food to the gods' images every day" or "We go to the festival when Amun's image goes on procession" or "We offer figurines and pray to Hathor at this little grotto at the base of the cliffs" or similar. Secrecy and mysticism were very much present within Egyptian religion, but they were not at the core of everyday practice. But to modern eyes, those are among the first things associated with ancient Egypt. There is a very long tradition in Western esotericism of ascribing profound secrets to ancient Egypt (documented in Assmann 1997 and especially Hornung 2001), and the mysteries of Isis are one of its major sources. That tradition diffuses into pop culture as a vague perception of secrecy.

But the article should not be blamed for the imprecision of my nomination statement. Future criticisms should focus on the specific wording of the article itself, not on a statement I made that is not part of the article. A. Parrot (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that the FA nomination statement on the candidate page and other such statements within the article (such as "...Apuleius's account has had direct effects in modern times. Through his description, the mysteries of Isis have influenced many works of fiction and modern fraternal organizations, as well as a widespread belief that the ancient Egyptians themselves had an elaborate system of mystery initiations.") constitute POV pushing and WP:PROFRINGE. I will carry on with the first bullet and other concerns on the detailed reassessment of the GA status. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Mysteries of Isis/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As expressed on the article Talk page, and confirmed as part of an early discussion with one of the major contributors to the article, the article's GA status should be reassessed. In comparison to the good article criteria, in its current state,

(i) The article is not broad enough in its coverage. It deliberately omits passages from the sources referenced in favor of a controversial view. Indeed, a fraction of the article seems almost entirely devoted to WP:PROFRINGE.

(ii) The article is not neutral. It seeks to evade consensus about the topic in favor of a controversial view. In fact, in its current state the article represents a means of framing an argument in favor of a controversial view. This should become evident as the title of article, its structure, and the use of sources including very controversial ones are explored.

(iii) The article is not stable. Until coverage and neutrality of the article are addressed, the article cannot be considered stable.

Intent and title

To begin, perhaps the most problematic aspect of the article is its overall intent. As a major contributor claims, “The title does not refer to Isis's cult, but to a ritual or group of rituals within that cult that conformed to the pattern of Greco-Roman mystery rites.” The literature does not support the view that the mysteries of Isis refer exclusively to a ritual or group of rituals within that cult that conformed to the pattern of Greco-Roman mystery rites. The result, as I already highlighted on the talk page, is that the article’s title and content often enter in direct conflict with both content on Wikipedia (e.g. with the passage of the following article and section: "Comparative study shows parallels between these Greek rituals and similar systems—some of them older—in the Near East. Such cults include the mysteries of Isis and Osiris in Egypt") as well as both its own sources and encyclopedic literature. This is not surprising however, as there was admission that the article openly espouses a controversial view. For consistency with all sources, a better title would simply be “Isis Cult and Mysteries”.

As I indicated, in its current state it could be argued that the article presents many characteristics of a WP:POVFORK which effectively serves to frame an argument (whether or not this was originally intended). It anticipates edits about the Isis Cult, which editors could reject on the false basis that this is not an article about the Egyptian cult, rather the Greco-Roman mystery rites. False basis indeed, as the literature unanimously supports that the Ancient Egyptian mystery religion and cult of Isis, including rites and traditions, originated in Egypt before Hellenized. Likewise, the use of the term “mystery” in the article does not reflect the mainstream view.

Article Structure

If the issue of the intent and title are resolved, the article structure should accommodate an Egyptian subsection (separate from the Greek subsection, also under the Origins section), which should be featured chronologically (as it should) above the Greek subsection. There is ample content in the article and in literature to fill such a section. Once again, the mainstream view espouses that the Isis Cult and Mysteries are from Egypt.

Representation of Sources

There are many instances in which sources are used selectively in support of a controversial view. Specifically, Bremmer (2014) acknowledges that in addition to having been adapted to the Greek and Roman world, the “existing rituals derived from the priests’ own Egyptian tradition”. Of aretalogies in the Hellenistic period, he added that Egyptian influence cannot be questioned. Similarly, both Pakkanen (1996) and Pachis (2014) recognize that the Isis cult which flourished in the Hellenistic age is foreign and of Eastern origin and according to Pachis that its rituals initially strictly followed the “Egyptian ritual order”.

A review of Pakkanen’s work truly illustrates how the article, in its current state misuses and (wrongly) strives to broadly ascribe the “mysteries” to the Greco-Roman era. Indeed, Pakkanen claims that “Openness was the characterizing aspect of the thiasos of Egyptian gods in Athens, and thus there was no shared secrecy in this cult that would have made the association clearly one of the mystery-type.” He adds that “the cult of Isis developed into a mystery cult, as it may be called, during Roman times” on the basis that the cult began to feature secrecy then. In other words, according to the author, the Isis cult was not secretive in Greek times and became secretive in Roman times. Most importantly, the distinction and use of the term “mystery” is made by Pakkanen when looking at Greco-Roman times in isolation. In contrast and similarly to other authors, Burkert (1987) claims that “Modem scholars agree that there were initiation rites for priests at various levels in Egypt, and there were secret rites in which only the higher priests were allowed to participate”. It would be very helpful not to omit Pakkanen’s description of practices at a sanctuary on Delos where the post of the priest was hereditary and based on the Egyptian origin, and where the rituals of the cult were much less ‘hellenized’.

Similarly, it would seem appropriate to discuss Burkert (1987) according to which, “The Roman senate was strongly opposed to the cult of Isis for some generations, and as a result the altar of Isis was destroyed repeatedly by the magistrates […] Because the clergy always stressed the relationship with Egypt and the necessity "to worship the gods of the fathers with the rites from home," "the Egyptian" had to be present to perform the sacrifice "with expertise"; therefore at least some of the priests would normally have been Egyptians. They used, and possibly even read, hieroglyphic books and handled sacred water from the Nile.”

Considering Pakkanen’s scholarship, Burkert’s (1987) claim that “there were no mysteria of the Greek style in Egypt, open to the public upon application” emphasizes the ambiguity of the term “mysteries”. Once again according to Pakkanen, in Athens “there was no shared secrecy in this cult that would have made the association clearly one of the mystery-type.”

Lefkowitz

The whole section seeking to pass Lefkowitz’s views from her book (and an author who cites Lefkowitz for a total of 10 citations, i.e., more than half the concentrated fringe section) as mainstream reflects bias, is WP:UNDUE and blatant WP:PROFRINGE. Wherever the views from Lefkowitz’s book are presented, the fact that they originated from a controversial work should be overtly stated. I also suggest dedicating a footnote to the heavy criticism of Lefkowitz’s source. The intent of the article and its title can be understood better in the context of Lefkowitz’s views expressed in her work. Unfortunately, the work does not reflect the mainstream and very clear view (also featured in encyclopedic literature) that the mystery religions (Isis) and the cult of Isis were from Egypt, and they were of Eastern origin before Hellenized. Unsurprisingly, Lefkowitz's work drew heavy criticism from a variety of authors. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The statement according to which the title ""mysteries of Isis", is used in the sources to refer to the kind of rituals described in the article; it does not refer to the ordination of Egyptian priests, and this distinction is clearly addressed and supported by sources in the article" is baseless, as I outlined by thoroughly referencing sources contained both in the article (and there only used selectively) and in the delist nomination. Likewise, if the statement is not consistent with literature, clearly stating "the scope of the article as situated in the Greco-Roman world" is not helpful. While the use of the term "mysteries" is ambiguous in the sources referenced, its use is very clear within mainstream encyclopedic literature. Insisting on pushing a controversial view based on an ambiguous term and against consensus remains both inappropriate and extremely problematic.

In that regard and to my knowledge, I had not mentioned Lefkowitz until the nomination and so that I was asked repeatedly by A. Parrot, in relation to it, "to provide reliable sources that dispute what's currently in the article" is false. As for refutations of Lefkowitz's work and its accurate portrayal as WP:PROFRINGE (not my own), it can easily be provided :

“She regularly slips into the kind of ethnocentric arguments against which she protests elsewhere.” (Howe, 1998)

“The attacks seek to discredit the methodology implicit to the sources by dismissing “eyewitness accounts,” and discounting “indigenous” agents in favor of speculations on fragments and secondary interpretations from much later authors” (Keita, 2000)

“Mary Lefkowitz has produced an intriguing and controversial study entitled Not Out of Africa.” ... “this study is pedestrian and represents vindicationist scholarship.” ... “Unequivocally, this author recognizes her singular view as plural” (Conyers, 1996)

It appears to be a common strategy for some editors and WP:PROFRINGE apologists to resort to unfounded personal attacks and other behaviors, accusing other editors of supporting "Afrocentrism and elements of the Black Egyptian hypothesis" (I personally support neither, or Eurocentrism, and the claim is very offensive) in order to avoid addressing issues in articles. Once again, I assessed the WP:BLUD claim previously, I stand behind my description of the behaviors I observed and denounced. I do not endorse ideologies and I continue to support WP:NPOV and adequate representation of sources. This is not “a stick” or "a battle" as some might like to frame it to the detriment of the platform's community WP:HTBC. There are clear policies regarding Wikipedia articles. If policies are disregarded, and if an article does not reflect WP:NPOV, and WP:PROFRINGE (as evidenced by scholarship) is enforced, for the sake of the platform and its readers, the situation should be identified and addressed. If an article does not meet GA criteria, it should be delisted. I kindly and humbly annotated the article, highlighting some of the areas of concerns and providing suggested changes for your consideration (sources explicitly supporting the modifications and additions are included here). Thank you for your thoughtful reviews and comments. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The annotations are not very impressive, at all, and even less convincing that the above. There are no sources offered to back your claim(s), for example. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: I don't seem able to access whatever text the annotations contain. Please list the sources here. A. Parrot (talk)

I see. Most of the sources you cite are the ones this article is based on; the one exception is Leeming p. 874, which in passing gives the impression (but does not explicitly state) that the mysteries originated in dynastic Egypt. The other sources don't say what you seem to want them to say. You yourself cite Burkert and Pachis as saying that individual initiation upon request only developed in the Isis cult in Hellenistic or Roman times, under Eleusinian influence!

Much of what you cite is irrelevant to the mysteries but about the general cult of Isis in the Greco-Roman world, which is not within the scope of this article. An article on that cult could well be created, as the scholarship on it is voluminous, but for now the best coverage of it on Wikipedia is at Isis#In the Greco-Roman world. As the organization of that article should make clear, and as the text of this article does make clear, the mysteries were only one element of the practices of the Greco-Roman Isis cult.

As for Lefkowitz, general criticisms of Not Out of Africa aren't sufficient to demonstrate that the book is "fringe". Scholars dispute aspects of each other's work all the time, and it doesn't render them fringe. More to the point, to my knowledge nobody has disputed her account of how Sethos influenced later perceptions of ancient Egypt, and Assmann 1997, Macpherson 2004, and Spieth 2007 all support aspects of that account. A. Parrot (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The nuances and ambiguities of Egyptian and Greco-Roman elements are well covered in the article and cited to the strongest sources available. The title, "mysteries of Isis", is used in the sources to refer to the kind of rituals described in the article; it does not refer to the ordination of Egyptian priests, and this distinction is clearly addressed and supported by sources in the article. The article's subject is covered as its own phenomenon in many good sources and described as distinct from the more general cult of Isis, which is covered in the main article about Isis. As for refutations of Lefkowitz and proposals of other theories, Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena has been asked repeatedly by A. Parrot to provide reliable sources that dispute what's currently in the article, but has not done so. Ffranc (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Franc. The nominator seems disgruntled that the article is about the Greco-Roman extension of the Isis cult, rather than its Egyptian origins, but the subject is clearly stated and well covered. Since passing GA it has also been submitted at FAC, where it is doing well. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. The nominator is misusing WP:PROFRINGE as if it simply meant scholarship he doesn't like. The nominator has also been involved in various other disputes pushing Afrocentrism and elements of the Black Egyptian hypothesis in the past, including getting blocked for it, so I am not inclined to take their criticisms very seriously. The article is well sourced and points to the differences between the worship of Isis per se (obviously of Egyptian origin) and the Greco-Roman mystery cult. Lefkowitz is only "controversial" if you ascribe to the entirely discredited theses of Black Athena.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• The OP's reply is classic wp:TLDR: please try to be succinct. Verbosity helps no one. Criticisms of Lefkowitz without any context do not respond to my point at all: she is an entirely respectable academic, and you have failed to provide any evidence that 1) the whole article somehow depends on her, or 2) that there's anything wrong with what she says. A scholar citing a scholar you don't like is not a reason to delist an article either. Furthermore, the first thing that A.Parrot did was ask you for sources if you had a problem with the article content and you haven't really provided any still, besides generalized attacks on Lefkowitz. --Ermenrich (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just to show the absurdity of the OP's focus on Lefkowitz: she is cited 5 times in the whole article. There are numerous other sources in the article that affirm that the mystery rites do not originate in Egypt. There is no "section devoted to the views of Lefkowitz", and its clear from the bulk of sources here that her position on the mysteries of Isis is entirely mainstream.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and please drop this particular stick. I dont find the rational convincing as the scope of the article is clearly stated from the opening sentence ("in the Greco-Roman world"). That the nominator is so willing to misquote policy to drive an agenda is disappointing, to put it nicely. I don't doubt that Nzakimuena is acting with the best of intentions....overall, this is not a well chosen battle. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Transubstantiation and Resurrection of the flesh

The mythology of Isis and the Roman Catholic religion differs for the doctrine of Eucharistic transubstantiation and of the final Resurrection of the flesh. The latter is believed to be true by most of Christian denominations. It is a basic which can be hopefully mentioned in the WP article.

I really don't see why. It's far from remarkable that two different religions would have different beliefs. The scholarly discussion focuses on points of similarity and how far those similarities extend. Transubstantiation and resurrection of the flesh are specifically Christian ideas with no Isiac parallel, so the sources don't discuss them in relation to the mysteries of Isis. A. Parrot (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Much more importantly, the question is irrelevant to the present WP article. This is not an article about the mythology of Isis. You will note that it's not actually quite clear what the article is about. It has been claimed (see Talk:Mysteries of Isis/GA2) that the article is about "the Greco-Roman extension of the Isis cult". Not long after, when it was demonstrated that sources are used only selectively with regard to "the Greco-Roman extension of the Isis cult" (towards WP:PROFRINGE), it was claimed that "the general cult of Isis in the Greco-Roman world [...] is not within the scope of this article".

You may also notice that the GA Reassessment could not be completed, as the WP article was rushed to FA status. I realize that some may find it humorous to give visibility to blatantly biased articles at the main contributors' expense. Perhaps, it does highlight a broader issue. I personally have respect for the contributors, I take great pride in my European heritage, and I see contempt for encyclopedic literature and delusional attempts at rewriting Greco-Roman history as a great pity.

The pitfalls of spending half-a-decade failing to vindicate fringe ethnocentric scholarship, and desperately grasping at its straws (such as the idea that "Sethos influenced later perceptions of ancient Egypt") cannot be overstated. For the rest of us firmly grounded in common sense, mystery is an integral part of Ancient Egyptian religious tradition, it predates ancient Greek and Roman traditions by millennia and it greatly influenced them. To return to your proposal then and as I highlighted previously, the present article is merely strategic. It anticipates edits about the Isis Cult (or mythology), which editors can (and now have) rejected on the false basis that this is not an article about the Egyptian cult, rather Greco-Roman mystery rites. In essence, it seeks to satisfy (or promote) the fantasy that Ancient Egypt had no influence on the Greco-Roman world, which explains the awkward phrasing throughout. I have nothing against editors living a ethnocentric fantasy. That being said, to avoid confusion and as I previously suggested, a better title to this WP article would simply be “Isis Cult and Mysteries”. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

On the origin of the Isiac initiation:

• Richard Veymiers (2020): "These 'mysteries of Isis' designate the Isiac adaptation of ritual practices of Greek origin, implying, like what took place around Demeter and Kore in Eleusis, an individual initiation leading to a change of state". "Les mystères isiaques et leurs expressions figurées. Des exégèses modernes aux allusions antiques", in Mystery Cults in Visual Representation in Graeco-Roman Antiquity, Brill, p. 126.
• Jan N. Bremmer (2014): "If the Isis Mysteries are indeed relatively recent – as they must be, as they are hardly attested before the second century AD – we must ask: where did the priests get their ideas as they constructed this new ritual of the Isis Mysteries? The most plausible answer seems to be: from their own rituals and other Mysteries. The obvious candidates in the latter respect are of course the Eleusinian Mysteries and the Mysteries of Samothrace, the most prestigious Mysteries of the period, but the priests may also have considered Dionysiac Mysteries." Initiation into the Mysteries of the Ancient World, Walter de Gruyter, p. 116.
• Miguel John Versluys (2013): "It is remarkable as there were no 'mysteries' (in the Greek sense of the term) of Isis in Pharaonic Egypt itself; this aspect of Isis clearly is an 'invention' that has to be located in the Greek and Hellenistic world. For the coming into being of Isis as a mystery goddess it is, moreover, the Eleusinian tradition that has provided the example… For the Greeks, the image of Egypt as old and religious was so strong that they could not but imagine Isis as a mystery goddess. Although in Egypt she clearly was not, this Orientalising trope was subsequently re-appropriated by Egyptians themselves and used as an important element with the Hellenisation of isis. In the Roman period it is this aspect that would be selected, eagerly used and underlined most particularly— in some contexts. The 'Egyptian mysteries' as described by Apuleius make this perfectly clear. These had little to do with 'Egyptian religion' proper but were a Roman appropriation of a Hellenistic concept in which Egyptian elements, real and imagined, played an important role, with a re-appropriation from the side of Egypt. This re-appropriation is fundamental. in the ancient world there was a competition for Alien Wisdom, and the Egyptian priests clearly capitalised on their excellent starting position." "Orientalising Roman Gods", in Panthée: Religious Transformations in the Roman Empire, Brill, p. 254
• Panayotis Pachis (2010): "The analogical relationship between the form of Isis and that of Demeter reinforces her status in the cultic life of the Athenians and of the Greeks in general; however, there isn't yet any sign of a mystery cult. Only later, with the beginning of the Imperial ages, does the ritual of Isis' cult acquire a mystery form. The Eleusinian influence defines the final completion of the ritual order." Religion and Politics in the Graeco-Roman World: Redescribing the Isis-Sarapis Cult, Barbounakis Publications, p. 67.
• Giovanni Casadio and Patricia A. Johnston (2009): "…cults to be properly called mystery religions, which are centered on a sanctuary and a precise form of gradual initiation and esotericism (the prototype is the cult of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis, on which are based the mysteric forms of the cults of Isis or Cybele)…" "Introduction" in Mystic Cults in Magna Graecia, University of Texas Press, p. 3
• Jaime Alvar (2008): "My focus… is upon those cults that, originating in the eastern Mediterranean, underwent a thorough-going transformation in the process of adapting themselves to Hellenistic-Roman culture, in particular by assimilating features characteristic of the grand mysteries celebrated from time immemorial at Eleusis… The originally Phrygian cult of Cybele and Attis, and the Egyptian cult of Isis, Osiris and Serapis in particular conform to this model." Romanising Oriental Gods: Myth, Salvation, and Ethics in the Cults of Cybele, Isis, and Mithras, Brill, p.10
• Martin Bommas (2005): "The three conditions that are necessary in order to be able to speak of mysteries are: initiates, their transformation, and their nearness to the god. In Egypt, these three points never occur together. From that it is necessary to conclude, the there were concepts of secret and hiddenness, not, however, of mystery, even if examples of arcane learning and guild knowledge, the learning of which sometimes required initiations, can surely come very close to the classical term of the mystery. However, this was enough to help give birth to 'Egyptian mysteries' in the Hellenistic period." Heiligtum und Mysterium: Griechenland und seine ägyptischen Gottheiten, Philipp von Zabern, p. 11
• Petra Pakkanen (1996): "As we have seen above, during early Hellenistic times there were no mysteries of Isis in Greece in the strict sense of the word. They emerged later, during the Roman times, and were to be found then in mainland Greece as well. It is necessary to ask when the cult of Isis in Greece might be called a mystery cult… Parallelization of the Isis festival with the Mysteries of Demeter is important in the process of the development of these mysteries. The two goddesses had been parallelized and afterwards identified with each other. The syncretizing process on the cultic level followed parallelization so the form of the mystery cult of Demeter was adapted into the cult of Isis." Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion: A Study Based on the Mystery Cult of Demeter and the Cult of Isis, Foundation of the Finnish Institute at Athens, pp. 78–79
• Walter Burkert (1987): "There seems in fact to be a double misunderstanding in cross-cultural relations lurking in the background of the mysteries of Isis. To the Greeks, as early as the sixth century B.C., celebrations of Osiris with nocturnal ritual and lamentation suggested 'mysteries', and the hierarchical esotericism of Egyptian priests reinforced this impression. Modern scholars agree that there were initiation rites for priests at various levels in Egypt, and there were secret rites in which only the higher priests were allowed to participate, but there were no mysteria of the Greek style, open to the public upon application. Yet in the eyes of the Greeks, who admired the aboriginal age of Egyptian civilization, Egypt appeared to be the very homeland and origin of mysteries as such… The Greek perspective was then adopted in turn by propaganda for Isis, as evidenced by the so-called Isis aretalogies in which Isis, among her other civilizing activities, is seen as the founder of mysteries throughout the world. The oldest extant text of this type, the 'Isis aretalogy' from Maroneia, makes it clear that it is the mysteries of Eleusis for which Isis is finally made responsible… But the later versions of the aretalogies are vaguer and thus seem to promise more; through this intentional ambiguity people surmised that there must be authentic Egyptian mysteries behind offshoots such as Eleusis, mysteries that were more original, more difficult to gain access to, and much more effective. Curiosity and demand could well be met. Sanctuaries of Isis began to offer forms of personal initiation upon request, modeled upon those of Eleusis and Dionysus, though in a style perfectly adapted to Egyptian forms of ritual and mythology." Ancient Mystery Cults, Harvard University Press, pp. 40–41

On the influence of Sethos:

• Darius Spieth (2007): "In an eighteenth-century context, Terrasson's novel stands out as the most important and influential contribution to this tradition [the esoteric traditions surrounding ancient Egypt]… Literary spin-offs, such as Étienne-François de Lantier's Voyages d'Antenor en Grèce et Asie avec des notions sur lÉgypte, which copied wholesale Terrasson's esoteric descriptions of initiation rites in ancient Egypt, found avid readers as late as 1797… Aided by historical circumstances beyond its author's control, Terrasson's Séthos enjoyed an unexpectedly long literary life. For roughly one hundred years after its initial publication in 1731, the book held its place as an unrivaled best seller on esoteric Egypt… Over the course of the eighteenth century, Terrasson's novel transcended its fictional origins, as increasing numbers of readers interpreted the description of Séthos's initiations to be genuine testimonials of ancient Egyptian cult practices."Napoleon's Sorcerers: The Sophisians, University of Delaware Press, pp. 51, 53
• Jay Macpherson (2004): "Sethos' adventures, though offered only playfully as fact and indeed prefaced with an essay on the moral uses of fiction, were taken up for a while by the serious scholarship of the age, with its desire to understand the nature and therefore the early history of religions—first and most influentially by William Warburton, defender of Anglican orthodoxy and later Bishop of Gloucester, the author of The Divine Legation of Moses… Warburton's vigorous and detailed exposition of Aeneas' journey leans very heavily indeed on the account in Sethos, though his extensive notes fail altogether to mention it. His debt was quickly noted by a couple of minor writers, and spelled out later by Gibbon in an essay on the defects of Warburton's classical scholarship… But Warburton's account, in his clear, emphatic prose, was published separately as a monograph, and reprinted for inclusion in commentaries on Virgil from Joseph Warton's Virgil edition of 1753 to P. W. Buckham's Miscellanea Virgiliana, 1825, yet farther diffusing features of Terrasson's romance, still unacknowledged." "The Travels of Sethos", Lumen: Selected Proceedings from the Canadian Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies, volume 23, pp. 244–245

These sources do not become "ethnocentric fringe scholarship" simply because one editor declares them so. A. Parrot (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I apologize to the originator of the section for the behavior of editors who may seek to overwhelm or intimidate others with unnecessarily and excessively long comments WP:BLUD (and justify subsequent censorship of content which is inconvenient and embarrassing to them through archiving). It is not clear why one may seek to defend other cited works in this regard : certainly and without question in the case of the work of Lefkowitz (1997), it has been characterized as ethnocentric, favoring speculation over eyewitness accounts and as representing a singular view WP:FRINGE (Howe, 1998; Keita, 2000; Conyers, 1996). The present WP article relies heavily upon it, dedicating a whole section to Lefkowitz’s ethnocentric fringe scholarship and a source citing the work (Macpherson, 2004). To summarize more succinctly and perhaps spare others from suffering incontinent half-a-decade-long parroting of scholarship inconsistent with the present WP article’s WP:PROFRINGE:

• Adapting and transforming (Veymiers, 2020; Alvar 2008), or modelling (Burkert, 1987) the original Egyptian Isiac rituals and real elements (Vesluys, 2013) to Greek and Roman practices, or their acquisition of a new form through Eleusinian influence or assimilation (Alvar 2008; Casadio & Johnston, 2009; Pachis, 2010) changes absolutely nothing to the undeniable truth and mainstream view that Isis, her cult and rituals were brought to Greece by Egyptian foreigners (Pakkanen, 1996, p. 50; Pachis, 2010, p. 178). Of aretalogies in the Hellenistic period associating Isis and Mysteries, great Egyptian influence based on content as well as studies of contemporary demotic literature is not in doubt (Bremmer, 2014, p. 111-112).
• That ancient Egyptian rituals did not feature mysteries in the Greek or strict sense of the term (Versluys, 2013; Pakkanen, 1996), or of the Greek style (Burkert, 1987), or satisfied three conditions which would allow ascribing them to the classical term of the mystery (Bommas, 2005) is self-evident, does not fallaciously preclude a mystery component in the non-Greek, classical or strict sense, and further highlights their foreign Egyptian origin. Indeed, and ironically when considering the WP article’s WP:PROFRINGE, according to Pakkanen (1996, p. 74-76), in early Hellenistic Greece itself the foreign Egyptian Isis cult (and rituals) had yet to acquire the later mystery form in the Greek sense, and only did so in Roman times. Once again, what the WP article is about remains unclear and the originator of the section's confusion that it is about the mythology of Isis is entirely justified. If it was about "the Greco-Roman extension of the Isis cult" as it has been claimed (see Talk:Mysteries of Isis/GA2), then it should not refer only to the form of the Egyptian foreign cult which only appeared in Roman times.
• To anyone relying heavily upon ethnocentric fringe scholarship, I suppose that extending the influence of Sethos beyond its eighteenth-century context (Spieth, 2007) and against better judgement seems rational (once again, the pitfalls cannot be overstated). Beyond helpless delusions, ethnocentric fantasy, selective citing and contempt for encyclopedic literature, the mystery religions (Isis) and the cult of Isis and their rituals were of Eastern origin and tradition before Hellenized (Alvar, 2008; Bremmer, 2014, p. 116; Pakkanen, 1996, p. 50; Pachis, 2010, p. 178; Larson, Pettis and Madden in Leeming, 2020).

Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Watch out, User:Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena, WP:NPA. You're still banging the same drum. The subject of this article is the cult after Hellenization, however much you wish it were otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I comment in good faith and I do not issue threats to other editors, WP:UNCIVIL, WP:HTBC. User:Johnbod whether the article is about the cult after Hellenization seems irrelevant to the section (and in general). If I am being completely honest (in good faith), it also betrays a deep misunderstanding of the topic. If you read Pakkanen (1996, p. 74-76), you will note his description of Sarapieions, one of which was much less Hellenized than the other. The description refers to the Athenian cult of Isis, which precedes its development into a mystery cult (in the classical sense) in Roman times. Therefore, if the subject of the WP article is the cult after Hellenization, indeed it appears it warrants changing the WP article's title to “Isis Cult and Mysteries” (and we are banging the same drum). I am also glad you agree that the cult was Hellenized and therefore and as the sources support, foreign in origin (from Egypt). That the origin of the Isis cult and mysteries should be stated more clearly, sources represented fully (not selectively), and WP:FRINGE scholarship identified as such, is what I advocate.

If you don't mind, for reasons I described previously on this talk page (editors being blocked for "commenting too much"), beyond my response and as eager as I am to converse with you, I will return to seeking interactions relating to article content with a single editor at time (regardless of responses, which editors are free to issue). Likewise, I feel it will not be necessary to address further comments hoping to frame interactions and development away from collaboration and save appearances by archiving. Thank you again kindly for your comment, which not unlike the very explicit (no need to presume) inquiry from the originator of the section concerning the mythology of Isis, further substantiates that the WP article remains a great source of confusion and WP:PROFRINGE. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, but I do mind! This is a public page, and you cannot choose who responds your comments. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The anonymous editor who started this section presumably brought up Christian beliefs because this article describes similarities and dissimilarities between Christian beliefs and the beliefs surrounding the mysteries of Isis. This is not a general article about the mythology of Isis and does not claim to be. It only describes those Isiac beliefs that relate to the mysteries, because no description of a ritual is complete without a discussion of its meaning and the resemblances to Christianity are a major topic of discussion for those scholars who study the mysteries of Isis.

Your objections to the article's content have been rejected by every other editor who has discussed them. The anonymous editor said nothing about those objections and should not be dragged into the dispute. Consensus is against you, and the sources are against you even though you refuse to recognize that. A. Parrot (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)