TL;DR

  • Newton reads pagan myth as compressed history: “deified men by new names,” producing many gods from a few great rulers Newton, Draft sections of the Chronology. 1
  • He argues Osiris = Bacchus = Sesostris, hence one historical Egyptian king: Sesac (biblical Shishak) Newton, Of the Empire of Egypt. 2
  • The Bacchic rites and the Osirian rites “agree in every thing,” so cultic parallels prove the identity Newton, Drafts on chronology: 2b. 3
  • He anchors the timeline around Rehoboam/Asa and the Shishak invasion, compressing Greek mythic chronology into a Biblical frame Newton, Drafts on chronology: 2b. 1
  • Classical writers already linked Osiris ↔ Dionysus (Herodotus 2.42; Plutarch Isis & Osiris), the same bridge Newton uses (Diodorus I.14; IV.2–6). 4

“For it was usual in those days to deify men by new names.”
— Isaac Newton, Draft sections of the Chronology (c. 1700s) 1

Newton’s thesis in one line#

Newton compresses the classical pantheon into a near-eastern king-list. Pagan gods are famous mortals whose deeds were ritually remembered and allegorized; divergent names multiply a single original. In his words, “several names were given to the same God… [and] names finally turned into so many Gods.” 5

From that axiom, he pushes the Dionysus/Bacchus question hard: “Osiris, Bacchus and Sesostris… all three must be one and the same King of Egypt; and this King can be no other than Sesac.” 2

Classical sources already hint at this identity: Herodotus says Egyptians “say [Isis and Osiris] to be Dionysus” (2.42), and Plutarch deems it “better to identify Osiris with Dionysus.” Newton simply systematizes that tendency and inserts it into a tight chronology (Herodotus 2.42; Plutarch, Isis & Osiris §§35–36). 4

How he gets there (Newton, not us)#

  1. Same epoch, same conquests, same trophies. Osiris, Bacchus, and Sesostris are each said to conquer to India, cross the Hellespont, take Thrace, erect inscribed pillars, and return to Thebes—therefore one king (his decisive lemma). 2
  2. Same rites. “The ceremonies & rites of Osiris agree in every thing with those of Bacchus,” and “Bacchus is generally accounted one & the same God with Osiris.” (Newton citing Diodorus and others.) 3
  3. Same deification pattern. “Sesac was deified… by the names Osiris, Bacchus, Dionysus” across countries; rulers and their consorts become gods with multiple local titles. 1
  4. Same onomastics inside Egypt. In Egyptian tradition, Bacchus is said to be son of Isis… named Arsaphes—an Egyptian label undergirding the Greek overlay. 6

What “Bacchus” means for Newton#

Not chiefly the Attic son of Semele; Newton distinguishes multiple “Bacchuses.” The conqueror-Bacchus of India and Thrace is the Egyptian Osiris/Sesac, not a later mythic variant—again, the test is deeds + rites + time (compare Diodorus IV.2–6 for the conquering Dionysus). 7

Rites as proof: Bacchic ≡ Osirian#

Newton’s most elegant move is ritual equivalence. He leans on Diodorus and Plutarch to argue that what Greeks celebrated as Bacchic orgia were Egyptian funerary-agricultural rites for Osiris, re-exported westward by priests like Orpheus/Eumolpus.8 Hence his compressed verdict: “the ceremonies & rites of Osiris agree in every thing with those of Bacchus.” 3

To show the shape of his argument, here’s a minimalist concordance (ritual motifs glossed with Newton’s sources):

MotifOsirian practiceBacchic counterpartClassical locus (Newton’s authorities)
Processions & lamentsNocturnal processions, mourning of OsirisNocturnal orgia, ιωλές and lamentsDiodorus I.14–15; Plutarch Isis & Osiris §69. 7
Sacred implementsSistra, emblems of harvestThyrsus, ivy, vintage emblemsPlutarch §§35–36 (Egyptian ↔ Dionysian symbols). 9
Mythic actDismemberment & reassembly of Osiris → agrarian cycleDying-rising Dionysus → vintage cyclePlutarch passim; Diodorus I.11–13. 9
Priestly transmittersEgyptian hierophantsOrpheus/Eumolpus bring rites to GreeceNewton citing Diodorus/Greek tradition. 3

Newton doesn’t need baroque allegory; he just matches cult with cult and lets the concordance bear the weight. “Bacchus is generally accounted one & the same God with Osiris.” 3

Names into Nations: Euhemerism with teeth#

Newton’s hermeneutic starts from language and spreads into polity:

  • Multiplication by epithets. “Several names were given to the same God… [and] names finally turned into so many Gods,” a philological engine for pantheons. 5
  • Hieroglyph → god. Heroes rendered in hieroglyphic emblems (ram-horns, ox, grapes, caduceus) become animal-shaped cults once the images go literal—an Egyptian habit exported abroad. 1
  • Deification in diaspora. Kings and queens receive new names in new lands—“Sesac was deified… by the names Osiris, Bacchus, Dionysus”—so mythic geography is the afterimage of conquest. 1

He even preserves Egyptian internal labels—e.g., Bacchus as Arsaphes, “strong and brave”—to show that the Greek god sits atop an Egyptian dossier, not the reverse. 6

The clockwork: why this equals Sesac / Shishak / Sesostris#

Newton welds the identity to Biblical chronology:

  1. Anchor event. The sack under Shishak (Sesac) during Rehoboam provides an absolute peg (1 Kgs 14; 2 Chr 12). Newton repeatedly timestamps conquests and civil wars against Asa’s reign. 1
  2. Name equivalence. In his drafts he writes of “Sesostris (or Sesak),” marking the Greek form and the Biblical form as referents of the same sovereign. 3
  3. Synchronisms. From Sesac to the Argonauts and the Trojan War, he compresses Greek mythic generations to fit the post-Solomonic horizon—an explicit program in Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. 2

Newton’s own clincher is worth hearing: “all three must be one and the same King of Egypt; and this King can be no other than Sesac.” 2

Table: Newton’s identity map (names, roles, proofs)#

Newton’s targetEgyptian label(s)Greek/Roman label(s)Historical person per NewtonProof-type he citesNewton locus
Conquering king of ThebesOsiris; rites with Isis; Arsaphes (epithet)Bacchus / DionysusSesac (= Sesostris/Shishak)Same epoch, conquests, pillars; same ritesEmpire of Egypt; Drafts 2b; Notes (TRAN00013). 2
Queen/consortIsisOften paired with Dionysus/BacchusQueen of SesacRites parallel Isis↔Demeter; cult diffusionDrafts 2b + Plutarch; Herodotus 2.42. 3 9
General / strongmanHercules (Egyptian general)HeraclesCaptain under SesacEgyptian campaigns in Libya; pillarsDraft sections of Chronology (a[7]). 1

FAQ#

Q1. Did Newton literally say Bacchus and Osiris are the same?
A. Yes: “Bacchus is generally accounted one & the same God with Osiris,” then he argues the rites “agree in every thing.” 3

Q2. Which Bacchus did he mean?
A. The conqueror-Bacchus (India/Thrace), not the Attic son of Semele; Newton distinguishes types and ties this Bacchus to Egyptian Osiris/Sesac by deeds and cult. 7 2

Q3. Why Sesac instead of “Sesostris”?
A. Because Newton aligns Greek report (Sesostris) with the Biblical Shishak (Sesac) to fix dates—his whole project is synchronization with the Hebrew timeline. 1

Q4. Did Newton invent the Osiris↔Dionysus link?
A. No—Herodotus (2.42) and Plutarch already make that identification. Newton weaponizes it to build a single historical king beneath the myths. 4

Footnotes#

Sources#

  1. Newtonproject ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. Newtonproject ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  3. Newtonproject ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  4. Penelope (U. Chicago) ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  5. Newtonproject ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  6. Newtonproject ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  7. Penelope (U. Chicago) ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  8. Newton names Orpheus/Eumolpus as vectors of Egyptian ritual into Greece while citing Diodorus’s description of Osirian ceremonies—his core move is ritual isomorphism, not allegory. 3 7 ↩︎

  9. Penelope (U. Chicago) ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  10. Loebclassics ↩︎