A question for JP Holding

[allsmiles]

I read an essay at tektonics.com, or org by JP Holding..., I have since closed the window :P

but at any rate, JP Holding makes it clear that unless there is archaeological evidence to support the parallels between christianity and mithraism (pre-New Testament) then the the thesis for parallels isn't valid. this seems to be the best evidence against the parallels christians are able to find.

his dating for the NT is more than likely much earlier than what modern studies have demonstrated it to be. of course the epistles were written between the death of christ (circa 33 AD) and the writing of the gospel of Mark (circa 70 AD, perhaps even later), with the gospel of John being written as late 120 AD. he also fails to mention that as early as 200 AD church fathers such as Tertullian were more than well aware of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity, as was Justin Martyr years before that. they had no qualms about requiring physical evidence to support the parallels, they took them for granted, but they did provide a classic "ace in the hole" that christians often employ: the work of satan.

my question is... how are we supposed to find evidence for the parallels if the evidence was destroyed by christians between the 2nd and 5th centuries AD? seems like a bit of a smug question to ask, and ill-informed as well.

he also uses no sources of his own that date beyond 1999, not that very much time has passed since then, but he also fails to utilize Manfred Clauss' work which is perhaps the most authoritative on the subject. Clauss does a fantastic job of citing historial, archaeological evidence to support not only Mithraism as a world reknown religion but also a competitor and source for early christianity. the rest of his sources are incredibly old as well, dating back to the 50's and 60's, while at the same time he criticizes Archarya S. for relying on old material as well.

thanks

AS

:)

[Rayado]

I'm interested to know whose modern studies you are quoting about the dating of the Gospels.

I'd also be interested to see Tertullian and Justin Martyr's relevant works (or cites thereof) that support your assertion.

:doh: And goofy me! Welcome to Tweb! :hi:

[Adam]

his dating for the NT is more than likely much earlier than what modern studies have demonstrated it to be. of course the epistles were written between the death of christ (circa 33 AD) and the writing of the gospel of Mark (circa 70 AD, perhaps even later), with the gospel of John being written as late 120 AD. he also fails to mention that as early as 200 AD church fathers such as Tertullian were more than well aware of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity, as was Justin Martyr years before that. they had no qualms about requiring physical evidence to support the parallels, they took them for granted, but they did provide a classic "ace in the hole" that christians often employ: the work of satan.

my question is... how are we supposed to find evidence for the parallels if the evidence was destroyed by christians between the 2nd and 5th centuries AD? seems like a bit of a smug question to ask, and ill-informed as well.

he also uses no sources of his own that date beyond 1999, not that very much time has passed since then, but he also fails to utilize Manfred Clauss' work which is perhaps the most authoritative on the subject. Clauss does a fantastic job of citing historial, archaeological evidence to support not only Mithraism as a world reknown religion but also a competitor and source for early christianity. the rest of his sources are incredibly old as well, dating back to the 50's and 60's, while at the same time he criticizes Archarya S. for relying on old material as well.

thanks

AS
:)
I don't remember where I heard it, but some say Mithraism borrowed from Christianity, not the reverse.
I don't know JPH's source, but usually early dating cites Bishop John A. T. Robinson who found all the New Testament to be before 70 A. D. in
Redating the New Testament (1974) and most especially The Gospel of John in The Priority of John. However, H. Lamar Cribbs dated John early in 1969 in his Journal of Biblical Literature article, as I did a few years earlier. The very first may have been Vacher Burch in the 1930's (John as basically written during Jesus's lifetime) and in the next decade C. C. Torrey with a 40 A. D. date, as well as Erwin Goodenough (1945).
Adam

[FreezBee]

I'd also be interested to see Tertullian and Justin Martyr's relevant works (or cites thereof) that support your assertion.

And malignant spirits imitated this, and laid down that the same thing be done in the mysteries of Mithra; for you know or may learn that bread and a cup of water are given in the rites of initiation, and certain words are said

Check this page: The Eucharist (http://www.mithraism.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?file=christ.txt&part=2&total=5).


- FreezBee

[Darth Executor]

my question is... how are we supposed to find evidence for the parallels if the evidence was destroyed by christians between the 2nd and 5th centuries AD? seems like a bit of a smug question to ask, and ill-informed as well.


Thisis a very strange question. You must have evidence of the existance of the parallels to know that Christians destroyed them, because if you don't, you wouldn't know about them.

[One Bad Pig]

And malignant spirits imitated this, and laid down that the same thing be done in the mysteries of Mithra; for you know or may learn that bread and a cup of water are given in the rites of initiation, and certain words are said

Check this page: The Eucharist (http://www.mithraism.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?file=christ.txt&part=2&total=5).


- FreezBee
That shows that there was borrowing, but from Christianity to Mithraism, which doesn't exactly bolster allsmiles' case.

[FreezBee]

That shows that there was borrowing, but from Christianity to Mithraism, which doesn't exactly bolster allsmiles' case.

No, no - that's Justin Martyr's claim, but he is hardly a disinterested witness.


This is a very strange question. You must have evidence of the existance of the parallels to know that Christians destroyed them, because if you don't, you wouldn't know about them.

No, no - the proof of the existence of parallels is the lack of them. If there were any parallels, the Christians would surely have destroyed them, and there would be none left. Since there are none left, the Christians must have destroyed them!

Ok, this kind of argumentation might not hold must water in a court room, but it's quite similar to most Biblicist apologetics, I'd say.


- FreezBee

[Darth Executor]

No, no - the proof of the existence of parallels is the lack of them. If there were any parallels, the Christians would surely have destroyed them, and there would be none left. Since there are none left, the Christians must have destroyed them!

Ok, this kind of argumentation might not hold must water in a court room, but it's quite similar to most Biblicist apologetics, I'd say.

Oh OK, well, Confucius was a homicidal maniac who used to chop babies' heads off and suck their brains out. I don't have any evidence for it because his followers destroyed it.

Hey, you're right, this is pretty fun.

[One Bad Pig]

No, no - that's Justin Martyr's claim, but he is hardly a disinterested witness.
Disinterested witnesses are hardly likely to write something about it, are they? Justin Martyr also grew up a pagan, so he's at least familiar with both sides of the coin. Why would he have converted if the evidence pointed in the other direction?

[FreezBee]

Oh OK, well, Confucius was a homicidal maniac who used to chop babies' heads off and suck their brains out. I don't have any evidence for it because his followers destroyed it.

Hey, you're right, this is pretty fun.

:lol: Yeah, you see how easy it is to prove whatever you want to prove!


Disinterested witnesses are hardly likely to write something about it, are they? Justin Martyr also grew up a pagan, so he's at least familiar with both sides of the coin. Why would he have converted if the evidence pointed in the other direction?

After Justin Martyr converted, he needed an excuse for his conversion, didn't he? Why did he convert? Well, why did the chicken cross the road?


- FreezBee

[One Bad Pig]

After Justin Martyr converted, he needed an excuse for his conversion, didn't he? Why did he convert? Well, why did the chicken cross the road?


- FreezBee
:ahem: Yeah, that's how it works. People convert just for kicks, THEN invent reasons for doing so.

[Sparko]

:ahem: Yeah, that's how it works. People convert just for kicks, THEN invent reasons for doing so.

what? you didn't?

I just woke up one day, and while brushing my teeth said, "hey, I think I will be a Christian" --- then as I was putting on my shoes I thought "Hmm I wonder why I am a Christian. I better make up some reason or other."

I am sure Freezbee is right, Justin Martyr did the same thing. Its the only logical way to act.

[Rayado]

Is a single Justin Martyr quote enough to conclude that Christianity stole from the Mithra cult? (I was under the impression that there were more reasons than just one quote.)

[James Peter]

The parallels between Mithras and early Christianity aren't clear. Mostly because we don't know very much about either of them (unless you count sources from a century or two later which reflect their own period well but aren't so useful for earlier periods). Klauck has probably provided the best recent comparison of early christianity and mystery cults in his 'The Religious Context of Early Christianity' and I think the only thing that we can be certain about is that the evidence leaves us unable to be certain of many things. There are similarities between the practices of the Mithras cult, but also differences. Justin isn't the only source, there is some archaeological evidence and a couple of other texts - although none from the first century if I remember correctly.

The claim that Mithras borrowed from Christianity is, I think, unlikely. If it was reasonably well established bu the 50s then significant changes to the veyr heart of its initiation ritual are unlikely. Christianity wouldn't be significant enough to be copied until the time of Justin at the earliest. My personal opinion is that christianity 'borrowed' from many mystery cults. It adopted symbols, acts which had significance in their culture, and used them in a new way. I don't think such an admisson is something to be afraid of. In many ways early christianity was itself a mystery cult (or at least would have been seen that way by hellenistic outsiders) and the cult of Mithras was probably the most widespread and well known in the period. Was it a rival? In some ways, although I don't think the Mithras Cult was exclusive in the same way that christianity was. It wasn't unusual to join all the local mystery cults 'just in case'. That is the cultural background of christianity - one of religious pluralism where acts had symbolic meaning. Taking an old symbol and using it in a new way is normal for a new religious movement. Christianity had to establish itself and people aren't, generally, that intentive when it comes to forms of ritual.

[One Bad Pig]

The parallels between Mithras and early Christianity aren't clear. Mostly because we don't know very much about either of them (unless you count sources from a century or two later which reflect their own period well but aren't so useful for earlier periods). Klauck has probably provided the best recent comparison of early christianity and mystery cults in his 'The Religious Context of Early Christianity' and I think the only thing that we can be certain about is that the evidence leaves us unable to be certain of many things. There are similarities between the practices of the Mithras cult, but also differences. Justin isn't the only source, there is some archaeological evidence and a couple of other texts - although none from the first century if I remember correctly.

The claim that Mithras borrowed from Christianity is, I think, unlikely. If it was reasonably well established bu the 50s then significant changes to the veyr heart of its initiation ritual are unlikely. Christianity wouldn't be significant enough to be copied until the time of Justin at the earliest. My personal opinion is that christianity 'borrowed' from many mystery cults. It adopted symbols, acts which had significance in their culture, and used them in a new way. I don't think such an admisson is something to be afraid of. In many ways early christianity was itself a mystery cult (or at least would have been seen that way by hellenistic outsiders) and the cult of Mithras was probably the most widespread and well known in the period. Was it a rival? In some ways, although I don't think the Mithras Cult was exclusive in the same way that christianity was. It wasn't unusual to join all the local mystery cults 'just in case'. That is the cultural background of christianity - one of religious pluralism where acts had symbolic meaning. Taking an old symbol and using it in a new way is normal for a new religious movement. Christianity had to establish itself and people aren't, generally, that intentive when it comes to forms of ritual.
The Eucharist, however, is easily shown to be a development from the Passover meal (where Jesus instituted it).

[FreezBee]

My personal opinion is that christianity 'borrowed' from many mystery cults. It adopted symbols, acts which had significance in their culture, and used them in a new way. I don't think such an admisson is something to be afraid of. In many ways early christianity was itself a mystery cult (or at least would have been seen that way by hellenistic outsiders) and the cult of Mithras was probably the most widespread and well known in the period. Was it a rival? In some ways, although I don't think the Mithras Cult was exclusive in the same way that christianity was. It wasn't unusual to join all the local mystery cults 'just in case'. That is the cultural background of christianity - one of religious pluralism where acts had symbolic meaning. Taking an old symbol and using it in a new way is normal for a new religious movement. Christianity had to establish itself and people aren't, generally, that intentive when it comes to forms of ritual.

I agree with you here. Christianity arose in a cultural environment, where mystery cults were common - you almost had to be member of a mystery cult to count as something. So we should expect some common traits between Christianity and mystery cults in general - such as an initiation rite and a rite whereby the iniated retains the connection with the divine.

As you mention, Mithraism wasn't exclusive. It was a peculiarity of Christianity to be exclusive - a Christian could not be a member of any other cult, whereas a member of e.g. the Mithras cult could be a member of e.g. the Cybele cult at the same time.


- FreezBee

[jpholding]

I read an essay at tektonics.com, or org by JP Holding..., I have since closed the window :P

Did you close your mind before or after that? :lol:


his dating for the NT is more than likely much earlier than what modern studies have demonstrated it to be.

The folks have answered this one. If you want to challenge my dating of the Gospels its also time to read my article on that as well.

he also fails to mention that as early as 200 AD church fathers such as Tertullian were more than well aware of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity, as was Justin Martyr years before that.

Irrelevancies. At best they made the same mistake the copycatters do, but when it gets down to specific cites there's nothing that shows that Mithra was the one that came first with any of it.

my question is... how are we supposed to find evidence for the parallels if the evidence was destroyed by christians between the 2nd and 5th centuries AD?

I like Darth's answers best to that one.

he also uses no sources of his own that date beyond 1999, not that very much time has passed since then, but he also fails to utilize Manfred Clauss' work which is perhaps the most authoritative on the subject.

Above Ulansey's? I rather doubt that. In any event, why not provide some quotes from Clauss that support the arguments I'm refuting?

the rest of his sources are incredibly old as well, dating back to the 50's and 60's, while at the same time he criticizes Archarya S. for relying on old material as well.

Here's a clue....the dates on most of Acharya's (spell it right now) sources begin with a number less than 20. :thumbd: And Mithraism is not exactly a hotbed for publishing opportunities.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Franz Cumont was and remains one the leading authorities on Mithra. Although much of his work is now dated, research on the Mithra mysteries is impossible without building on his work, which was detailed in his book "THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA".

This is what he wrote on the parallels between Christianity and Mithra and any possible influences Mithraism had on the development of early Christianity:

We cannot presume to unravel to-day a question which divided contemporaries and which shall doubtless forever remain insoluble. We are too imperfectly acquainted with the dogmas and liturgies of Roman Mazdaism, as well as with the development of primitive Christianity, to say definitely what mutual influences were operative in their simultaneous evolution. But be this as it may, resemblances do not necessarily suppose an imitation. Many correspondences between the Mithraic doctrine and the Catholic faith are explicable by their common Oriental origin. Nevertheless, certain ideas and certain ceremonies must necessarily have passed from the one cult to the other; but in the majority of cases we rather suspect this transference than clearly perceive it.

Apparently the attempt was made to discern in the legend of the Iranian hero the counterpart of the life of Jesus, and the disciples of the Magi probably drew a direct contrast between the Mithraic worship of the shepherds, the Mithraic communion and ascension, and those of the Gospels. The rock of generation, which had given birth to the genius of light, was even compared to the immovable rock, emblem of Christ, upon which the Church was founded; and the crypt in which the bull had perished was made the counterpart of that in which Christ is said to have been born at Bethlehem. 1 But this strained parallelism could result in nothing but a caricature. It was a strong source of inferiority for Mazdaism that it believed in only a mythical redeemer. That unfailing wellspring of religious emotion supplied by the teachings and the passion of the God sacrificed on the cross, never flowed for the disciples of Mithra.
…………
The only domain in which we can ascertain in detail the extent to which Christianity imitated Mithraism is that of art. The Mithraic sculpture, which had been first developed, furnished the ancient Christian marble-cutters with a large number of models, which they adopted or adapted.
………….

It would be wrong, however, to exaggerate the significance of these likenesses. If Christianity and Mithraism offered profound resemblances, the principal of which were the belief in the purification of souls and the hope of a beatific resurrection, differences no less essential separated them. The most important was the contrast of their relations to Roman paganism. The Mazdean Mysteries sought to conciliate paganism by a succession of adaptations and compromises; they endeavored to establish monotheism while not combating polytheism, whereas the Church was, in point of principle, if not always in practice, the unrelenting antagonist of idolatry in any form.

Chapter 6: MITHRAISM AND THE RELIGIONS OF THE EMPIRE; pp 194-197

[FreezBee]

The folks have answered this one. If you want to challenge my dating of the Gospels its also time to read my article on that as well.

Don't we all want to do that? How about throwing a linky to us?

Here's a clue....the dates on most of Acharya's (spell it right now) sources begin with a number less than 20. :thumbd: And Mithraism is not exactly a hotbed for publishing opportunities.

I haven't read Acharya S's book, but I did read some online papers of hers before she became famous. The papers appear to be taken offline now (to enfoece people to nuy her book?), but I remember a passage that made me laugh my beard off: she claimed that James, the brother of Jesus, was modelled over Amseth, the brother of Horus. Sure, "Amseth" and "James" have a few letters in common, and 99.9999% of all Christian apologetics would have accepted this identification, if had been between some person mentioned in the Bible and some person mentioned in some inscription. However, the problem for Acharya is that "James" is some weird English transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic "Yaqqov" (other transliterations available on request :smile:), that is "Jacob", and there's not much similarity between that and "Amseth", so Acharya here only exposes her ignorance of, what's in the Bible!


- FreezBee

[One Bad Pig]

Don't we all want to do that? How about throwing a linky to us?
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

[FreezBee]

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

Thank you :thumb: Now, let's see, if this changes JPH's score from 15% readworthy to higher or lower.


- FreezBee