Mithras
lyon...@gmail.com
I would have to disagree with Ben Witherington on the topic of
Mithras. There is a good deal of scholarship and archaeology
(hundreds of Mithraem and Tauroctenies (sp?)) pre-dating Christ.
While Mithras does have some Babylonian roots, the Roman soldier cult
developed in the mid- to late- second century B.C. as an explanation
of why Taurus had been 'slain' and replaced with Ares, and there is
evidence that part of John's writing to Ephesus in Revelation is
directed toward saying that Jesus is God and not Mithras.
I've blogged a little on the subject here: http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=33
after my trip to Ephesus last year, and Bell uses some of Ray
Vanderlaan's material here: http://community.gospelcom.net/Brix?pageID=12930&article=22593
and Ulansey's interpretations of Mithras and the Taurocteny here:
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html
The topic of the trampoline and the Virgin Birth has also been
discussed here: http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/01/16/slicecrn-discussion-of-rob-bell-trampolines-and-virgins/
I will take a look back in tomorrow...
Roger Pearse
> I would have to disagree with Ben Witherington on the topic of
> Mithras. There is a good deal of scholarship and archaeology
> (hundreds of Mithraem and Tauroctenies (sp?)) pre-dating Christ.
There are none, in fact. The earliest archaeology dates to ca. 80 AD
(so Prof. Manfred Clauss, "The Roman cult of Mithras".
> While Mithras does have some Babylonian roots, the Roman soldier cult
> developed in the mid- to late- second century B.C. as an explanation
> of why Taurus had been 'slain' and replaced with Ares, and there is
> evidence that part of John's writing to Ephesus in Revelation is
> directed toward saying that Jesus is God and not Mithras.
All of these statements are inaccurate, and horribly so,
unfortunately.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Chris L
of calling dissenting scholarly work (like David Ulansey's) "fringe"
is just that - a foil.
The referece in Revelation to Jesus holding the seven stars deals
directly with the Cosmology of the Roman times (noting the
significance of the seven stars in the Taurocteny, as well).
It seems, from observation/research on the admittedly contentious
timing of the rise of the Mithras cult, that many Christian
archaeologists/historians completely discount the 68 BC records (pre-
dating Christ) because it gives ammunition to those who would argue
that Christianity was patterned off of Mithraism. Just as well, there
are non-Christian scholars with axes to grind for the same (but
opposite) reason. I, however, am convinced (long before I'd ever
heard of Rob Bell) of the third view - that Mithras (as supported by
the 68 BC record and additional archaeology) existed prior to
Christianity, but that its development was partially patterned on
Christianity as a competing religion (much the same way as Mormonism,
though post-Christian, has purposely mirrored parts of Christianity to
deceive the casual observer).
David Ulansey's (who is not a Christian) interpretation of the
Taurocteny related to the cosmology and the "death" of Taurus, and the
ensuing panic on the cosmology and afterlife, is mirrored in John's
Revelation, where John reveals Christ (not Mithras) as God, and He who
holds the keys to the Cosmos. Regardless of pre- or post- 33 AD
development of Mithras, it was undoubtedly a competing religion to
Christianity by the time of John's writing of Revelation, by all
parties - which gets back to Bell's point.
Chris
Roger Pearse
> I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, then, as the old foil
> of calling dissenting scholarly work (like David Ulansey's) "fringe"
> is just that - a foil.
It is usually best, tho, to find out whether someone is wrong before
we find reasons why they went wrong or how they came to be so stupid.
We can find out easily enough what scholars think about Ulansey's
(interesting) work. Dr Richard Gordon has some pages on it, if
nothing else.
> It seems, from observation/research on the admittedly contentious
> timing of the rise of the Mithras cult, that many Christian
> archaeologists/historians completely discount the 68 BC records (pre-
> dating Christ) because it gives ammunition to those who would argue
> that Christianity was patterned off of Mithraism.
Actually the main reason why scholars discount Plutarch's testimony is
that the archaeology is against it. I myself dislike ignoring a
positive statement in the literary account, tho.
> I, however, am convinced (long before I'd ever heard of Rob Bell) of the
> third view - that Mithras (as supported by the 68 BC record and
> additional archaeology) existed prior to
> Christianity, but that its development was partially patterned on
> Christianity as a competing religion (much the same way as Mormonism,
> though post-Christian, has purposely mirrored parts of Christianity to
> deceive the casual observer).
It is certainly conceivable. That Mithras was syncretistic, like all
ancient paganism, cannot be in doubt, and would be proven anyway from
the presence of Helios, I think. But I'm not sure that the evidence
demands this, tho. It is slightly difficult to see why it would be
advantageous for the patres of Mithras to do this.
Clauss suggests that the similarities really reflect the common
cultural context of the two, rather than cross-influence either way.
In view of the weakness of the commonalities, this seems plausible.
> David Ulansey's (who is not a Christian)
All this stuff about whether we should listen to or ignore scholars
based on their religion: surely we shouldn't be really interested in
all this ad hominem stuff, you know? No-one writes about Mithras on
the basis imagined as far as I can tell; it simply isn't a live issue
among scholars whether Mithras came first or not. It's hardly an
issue among amateurs like myself, even.
> interpretation of the Taurocteny ...
... I have read, but found entirely speculative. I think that we have
just too much modern myth-making going on. IMHO it would be better
for us all if we got into the habit of sticking to what the data says,
and rejected all attempts to theorise about it.
> Regardless of pre- or post- 33 AD
> development of Mithras, it was undoubtedly a competing religion to
> Christianity by the time of John's writing of Revelation,
I wonder how we know this? Did they overlap at all, and if so,
where? (I'm conscious that all the data suggesting a conflict is
mid-2nd century or later).