From time to time, it is discovered that an ancient text is not as old as previously believed, or that its historically attributed author is not its actual author. It is not necessary to point at other traditions; Orphism is a religion built around texts attributed to Orpheus, almost all of which are now lost, and the surviving few of which have been dated to Roman times1. Orpheus, the mythical Thracian Bard and Argonaut, if ever he lived at all, could not have lived long enough to write the texts that survive today in His name. Although the religion must necessarily then be pseudepigraphic, it remains a revealed religion: the things that make Orphism a unique religion were handed down by the Gods, to (or through) Orpheus, and by way of Him, to all of us.
Taken together, these things seem to be contradictory: If the religion was revealed, it was revealed to Orpheus. Otherwise, if Orpheus isn’t one historical author, and anyone could write a text that passes under the name of Orpheus, what even makes these things a revelation at all, and not just popular philosophy2? This essay will reconcile this contradiction by arguing that the actual authors of these texts are less important. The fact that these texts do survive attributed to Orpheus, even though other attributions were known, implies a sort of spiritual acceptance of the teachings that is equivalent to revelation, whether or not one believes in an actual particular (or series) of revelation event(s).
To begin, we must look at some of the people named as the “actual authors” of Orphic poems. Herodotus tells us that a man named Onomacritus was kicked out of Athens due to his interpolation of his own forged oracles into copies of Musaeus:
They had come up to Sardis with Onomacritus, an Athenian diviner who had set in order the oracles of Musaeus. They had reconciled their previous hostility with him; Onomacritus had been banished from Athens by Pisistratus' son Hipparchus, when he was caught by Lasus of Hermione in the act of interpolating into the writings of Musaeus an oracle showing that the islands off Lemnos would disappear into the sea.3
Musaeus is often seen as a pupil or son of Orpheus. This, with Herodotus’ tendency to keep reverent silence4 , could mean that his account of Onomacritus might also be read as an accusation of Orphic forgery5. Indeed, we find Onomacritus named by other sources, such as Clement of Alexandria, who also gives a few more names and even titles of works:
And the Oracles ascribed to Musaeus are said to be the production of Onomacritus, and the Crateres of Orpheus the production of Zopyrus of Heraclea, and The Descent to Hades that of Prodicus of Samos. Ion of Chios relates in the Triagmi, that Pythagoras ascribed certain works [of his own] to Orpheus. Epigenes, in his book respecting The Poetry attributed to Orpheus, says that The Descent to Hades and the Sacred Discourse were the production of Cecrops the Pythagorean; and the Peplus and the Physics of Brontinus.6
Clement, as an early Christian thinker, was not met with the same issue that we are. As someone from the outside with no interest, he feels these texts are better identified by the men who lived to write them. To him, they are not divinely inspired at all. For us, this view will not suffice.