TL;DR: The authors distinguish between the ancient tales relating to the dismemberment or sparagmos of Dionysos and the modern fabrication which they call the Zagreus myth, which is put together from several elements: 1) The dismembering of the body of a man, 2) The punishment of the Titans, 3) The creation of mankind from the Titans and 4) The inheritance humans receive from the first three parts -the burden of guilt from the Titan9 crime and the divine spark from the remains of the man.
Abstract: In this essay, I distinguish between the ancient tales relating to the dismemberment or sparagmos of Dionysos and the modern fabrication which I call the "Zagreus myth." This myth is put together from several elements: 1) the dismemberment of Dionysos; 2) the punishment of the Titans; 3) the creation of mankind from the Titans; and 4) the inheritance humans receive from the first three parts - the burden of guilt from the Titans9 crime and the divine spark from the remains of Dionysos. Building upon Linforth9s critical review, I first examine the pieces of evidence out of which this Zagreus myth has been assembled, demonstrating that the few pieces of evidence used to construct the myth fail to support the existence of such a story before the modern era. While ancient sources provide testimony to the first three components of the myth, the final component-the resulting original sin-is an addition of modern scholars. I next show that, viewed without the framework of the Zagreus myth, the pieces of evidence provide testimony to a variety of tellings of the dismemberment myth, which was not the exclusive property of the "Orphics" but rather a well-known element in the Greek mythic tradition. I then explore the Christian models of religion within which the myth was mistakenly reconstructed, noting the role this reconstruction of Orphism played in the turn-of-the-century debates surrounding the nature of the early Church. Finally, I conclude that the gold tablets and their religious contexts have been misunderstood because these texts have been interpreted in terms of a modern fabrication dependent on Christian models, the Zagreus myth. The "Orphic" gold tablets themselves have nothing to do with the stories of sparagmos and anthropogony, but instead supply important evidence for the study of Greek eschatological beliefs.
TL;DR: The first of the gold leaves, that of Petelia, was published in 1836, and the studies on the history of religion considered the existence of Orphism a well-established fact, which led that leaf to be interpreted as Orphic as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: INTRODUCTION: THE DEBATE OVER THE RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF THE LEAVES When the first of the gold leaves, that of Petelia, was published in 1836, the studies on the history of religion considered the existence of Orphism a well-established fact, which led that leaf to be interpreted as Orphic, just as happened with the other gold leaves which appeared in subsequent years. The hypercritical skeptical reaction started by Wilamowitz questioned the Orphic character of these documents, and the authority of the illustrious German philologist meant that the issue was left aside for many years. However, not even in the most skeptical times have the leaves been convincingly assigned to another known religious movement, and it has become usual to call them “Orphic” with resigned inverted commas. There has been one attempt, by Pugliese Carratelli, to distinguish two types of leaves which would come from two different religious contexts: (a) Those in which Mnemosyne gives instructions based on memory and the recognition formula “I am a son of Earth and starry Heaven.” In those leaves there are no allusions to the divine status of the deceased, nor are Persephone, Eucles, Eubuleus and the other immortal gods mentioned, but only the “king of the Underworld”. The aim of the mystai is to go through “the sacred way over which the other mystai and bakkhoi go forward in glory.” Pugliese Carratelli calls these leaves “Mnemosynial” and thinks they are Pythagorean. […]