In the comments to my post on the Bill Maher docucomedy “Religulous”, a Zoomtard reader called Johnny Rico writes,
You condemn Maher’s documentary for not having footnotes, yet I see none in your reply to him… Not meaning to sound pugnacious or confrontational (which is tough over the web) Do you have any?
Well I didn’t have them to hand but I am a member of a few libraries and it was so simple a task to footnote my claims that I thought I would try and honour Rico’s comment. Especially because he used the word pugnacious.
In my first post I wrote, “It is as preposterous as his attempt to conflate the myth of Mithras, a Persian god from about 5-600BC who was adopted widely in Rome after undergoing modification in the 3rd Century. Why did he become popular in Rome? Because as a pagan god he wasn’t grounded in a historical person and so the myth absorbed the story of Jesus and adapted it to fit inside the Mithras mystery cult! It’s the opposite of what Maher is claiming!”
Manfred Clauss in his seminal “The Roman Cult of Mithras” (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh: 2000) writes of the claims about syncretism between Christianity and Mithraism that “the entire discussion is largely unhistorical” (p.168). He goes on, (p168-169), “Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are part of the common currency of all mystery cults or can be traced back to common origins in the Graeco-oriental culture of the Hellenistic world”.
The worship of Mithras “found a place in the ‘pagan revival’ that occurred, particularly in the western empire, in the latter half of the fourth century AD.” (p.29)
Regarding epigraphic evidence for Mithraism, early in the book he explains, “Relatively few inscriptions of any kind survive from the second half of the third century”. (p. 28). He elaborates, “It is only at the turn of the fourth century that we have a series of documents that reveal senior public officials supporting the cult”. He begins the book with this sentence, “It is convenient to term the Persian and Hellenistic deity Mitra, to distinguish him from the god of the Roman mystery-cult” (p. 3). Why? Because “no direct continuity, either of a general kind or in specific details, can be demonstrated between the Perso-Hellenistic worship of Mitra and the Roman mysteries of Mithras.” (p.7)
Or in other words, Roman Mithras rose to prominence for sure in Rome in the 300s having been adapted and modified from the earlier beliefs of the Persians. (The earliest document to name the god is a Hittite one, where Mitra is a deity of treaties and dates from the second millennium BC from modern Turkey. The idea of Mitra as sun god dates from the fifth century BC. At all times there is fluidity in the myth) The shift from Mitra into Roman Mithras was brought about by adapting common cultural and mythological grammar from pagan beliefs of the time (with regards the ever rising sun and the cleansing of water) that are tangentially but not substantively comparative to Christianity. Some other time I can blog any number of popular theologies of folklore that have been written by Christians as diverse as C.S. Lewis and Rob Bell.
Later I wrote, “Horus is a catch all name referencing different mythic story strands.” The texts write, “Numerous were the names of the sun god. The most general one, RE, denoted the sun itself. HORUS or HAR-AKHTE originally stood for the god, regarded as a bird of prey with blazing eyes, while KHEPRE denoted the god in forum of a beetle. Finally the evening sun was represented by ATUM in the form of an old man. The sun god is usually represented with the head of a sparrow-hawk surmounted by the sun.” (A Handbook of Egyptian Religion, Adolf Erman, Archibal Constable & Co. Ltd, London: 1907, p. 10). [Later on page 56 we read that during the New Kingdom, "The god Min of Koptos was forced to appear merely as another name for the universally beloved Horus"]
I wrote, “Horus didn’t raise a friend called Lazarus, he raised his father called El Asis.” Well there is even dispute about that. Set, brother of Horus, kills his father Osiris. But Erman writes, “Isis, however caused breath to enter it [Osiris' corpse] with her wings and thus the dead god began to return to life, he raised his arm, turned himself one side and then lifted up his head”. (Erman, p. 34, citing Mar. Dend. IV.68 et seq., 88et seq.)
According to Pyramid Text 154, while Isis is hovering over Osiris’ body she fell preganant with Horus. He eventually grew up and went to war with Set, losing an eye in the battle. He gave this eye to his father who “became animated and mighty” (Erman, p. 35, citing Pyramid texts 145 and 15). Horus is taken by Isis in the hall of Keb where he suceeds his father. Thus, in the royal liturgy of Egyptian successions, the dead king is depcited as Osiris, the new king is Horus. And at no point does this look like Jesus.
Which leads me back to one of my initial points. I wrote, “In Egyptian texts, Horus didn’t die, never mind rise again.” Horus is embodied on Earth or conflated with Pharaoh. And as we see above, when the Pharoah dies, he becomes Osiris. Thus the texts read, “The succession from one King to another was viewed as an unchanging mythological situation: Horus succeeded Osiris. Since most kings were succeeded by their sons, actuality tallied with theology in this respect…. In the myth Osiris, murdered by Seth, was revived, but only as a power in the beyond; Horus assumed the throne. In actuality this was also seen to be true. The new king assumed rule as Horus; his father had coalesced at death with Osiris, the forebear and prototype of all dead kings.” (Ancient Egyptian Religion, Henri Frankfort, Harper & Row, New York: 1961, p. 103-104).
Horus does die in some versions of Egyptian myth but this just goes to show that Maher is barking up the wrong tree. There are so many wildly divergent tales about Horus and indeed all the egyptian deities that there are bound to be surface similarities eventually with the Christian story. But at no point does the similarity even come close to being meaningful.
This little bit of research to back up stuff I had learned from all over the place was done exclusively with non-Christian authors. This is merely substantiating the kind of conversation I have read in apologetic texts from a more distance perspective. But it goes to show you that if I can do it with a few hours to spare on a Wednesday afternoon, how dishonest (or perhaps more fairly, trifling) a work Religulous actually is.
If Maher is right and “Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking”, what do we call it when you do no reading?
Your Correspondent, Calls that ignorance
![The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ [Hardcover]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41bh8oSh1VL._SL160_.jpg)
as a pagan god he wasn’t grounded in a historical person
So in this way the ancient middle eastern god Mithras was like the ancient middle eastern god Yahweh.
… Good to know.
In a sense yes.
But in a fascinatingly and huger sense: Hell no!
Even anthropologically speaking, the idea of the pagan god Mithras is a categorical different idea from the one postulated by the monotheistic Jews in YHWH.
But then again, you think the idea of the monotheistic Jews is a bit of a myth. (Didn’t notice you comment on my Shema post: http://zoomtard.furiousthinking.org/2009/04/29/christianity-and-paganism/
)
In a sense yes.
But in a fascinatingly and huger sense: Hell no!
Well, EITHER your “not historical” rule works – and both Mithras and Yahweh are phony,
OR your “not historical” rule doesn’t work, and you’ve provided no reason to believe Mithras is phony.
Even anthropologically speaking, the idea of the pagan god Mithras is a categorical different idea from the one postulated by the monotheistic Jews in YHWH.
Yahweh. Asherash. Jesus. Magic Ghost. Angels. Archangels. Giants. Dragons. Satan. Cherubim. Seraphim. Demons. … yeah, that’s monotheism all right.
You do realise that monotheism postulates a single God, right? When Jews declare themselves monotheists that does not mean they only believe in two conscious entities: humans and a single God. It means that they believe in one God, from whom all things come.
So the existence of angels, archangels, demons, cherubim, seraphim, the satan and even other entities that are not angels in no way contravenes the distinction of monotheism from paganism.
What is to be gained anyway, by such far-fetched combinations? In practice, (which is, I think, how religions should best be studied) Jews approach their relationship with YHWH in a radically different fashion to the way that pagans approached Mithras. But even if they didn’t, how does it hold that either I accept neither YHWH AND Mithras or both YHWH AND Mithras?
Your. Logic. Gates. Do. Not. Compute.
> So the existence of angels, archangels, demons,
> cherubim, seraphim, the satan and even other entities that
> are not angels in no way contravenes the distinction of
> monotheism from paganism.
I can’t agree. Yahweh is a magic invisible supernatural being who lives in the sky. So are angels. So are archangels, cherubim, etc. Christianity just happens to believe that one of its many magic invisible supernatural beings who live in the sky is in charge of all the other magic invisible supernatural beings who live in the sky.
The Greeks believed Zeus was better than all the magic invisible supernatural Greek beings who lived in the sky.
And the Hindoos Vishnu. Etc. Etc.
Further, the Christians’ theoretical distinction that you cling to has no testable meaning. Ergo Christians are polytheists.
QED.
> What is to be gained anyway, by such far-fetched
> combinations?
Far fetched only if you can show it to be so. And to date you can’t. Indicating it isn’t. In fact the parallels are striking, indicating a common origin to each mythology.
> In practice, (which is, I think, how religions
> should best be studied) Jews approach their relationship
> with YHWH in a radically different fashion to the way that
> pagans approached Mithras.
Pagan god lived in sky.
Jewish god lived in sky.
Pagans prayed to their god.
Jews prayed to their god.
Pagans killed and burned animals for their god.
Jews killed and burned animals for their god.
Pagan god liked the smell of sacrificial smoke.
Jewish god liked the small of sacrifical smoke.
Pagan god sent flood.
Jewish god sent flood.
Pagan god sent messengers to earth.
Jewish god sent messengers to earth.
… let me know when we get to the radically different part.
> But even if they didn’t, how
> does it hold that either I accept neither YHWH AND
> Mithras or both YHWH AND Mithras?
Never said you did. I merely pointed out the reasoning you offer leaves those two alternatives.
Moonsray, I think the comparisons you are drawing are a bit empty. For instance take Enlil/Enki from Babylonian Mythology and Zie from Chinese mythology satisfy you’re list. They both cause the flood in exactly the same way, by letting fire proceed it. They both do it for the same reasons in fact, because they are grumpy “young” gods.
In fact there are even more similarities between them and yet they are totally different gods. Conceived of and approached in totally different ways.
So it is easily possible for there to be “similarities” between Mithras and YHWH and for what Zoomtard said to be correct in that “Jews approach their relationship with YHWH in a radically different fashion to the way that pagans approached Mithras”.
Mithras was a mystery religion in late Rome with access to a selective group. The religion of YHWH is very ancient and comes from Canaanite culture, indeed possibly (let me emphasises only possibly) from the Edomites*, so at the end of the day there is going to be some huge differences between them.
*Which would be really old. Middle Assyrian roughly.
From Moonsray:
>> So the existence of angels, archangels, demons,
>> cherubim, seraphim, the satan and even other entities that
>> are not angels in no way contravenes the distinction of
>> monotheism from paganism.
>I can’t agree. Yahweh is a magic invisible supernatural being who lives in the >sky. So are angels. So are archangels, cherubim, etc. Christianity just >happens to believe that one of its many magic invisible supernatural beings >who live in the sky is in charge of all the other magic invisible supernatural >beings who live in the sky.
My car is red. So is the jar of lip balm sitting on my desk. Hence, next time I go for a spin, I should saddle up the lip balm?
Moonsray, I think the comparisons you are drawing are a bit empty.
Are there any ancient gods whom you believe were copied/ borrowed in any way from any other?
Can you list them please?
And give the reasons you rely on to reach the conclusion that syncretism happened?
Ishtar was influenced by Innana, would be a good example.
The reasons for this are that we have clear evidence of direct transference of myths from the Sumerians to the Akkadians. There is a slow process where we see Innana taken into Akkadian culture and given a Semitic name. First the myths are exactly the same as Innana’s, related to the Apsu, e.t.c. However we see these myths gradually revised and altered with subtle personality changes until a different being emerges. Sometimes we can name those who made the changes.
No such clearly documented evolution of mythological texts links Mithras with YHWH.
Ishtar was influenced by Innana, would be a good example.
No such clearly documented evolution of mythological texts links Mithras with YHWH.
Are you able to see influence in any circumstance when the evolution of the mythological texts cannot be documented?
How about animal sacrifice? Many ancient religions killed animals and burned them for the gods. Yet I don’t know that the evolution of the theology can be documented moving from one country to the next. Is it your theory that animal sacrifice emerged independently in each country – after all there is no clearly documented evolution of practice?
How about divine dreams?
Prophesy?
Miracles?
Angels?
Gods?
The flat round earth with the dome of the solid firmament?
How about the mysteries? We can’t document the evolution of the theology of union with the god / salvation from Orpheus to Dionysus to Eleusis to Samothrace to Osiris to Jesus. Does that mean to you that the mystery religions each emerged independently? Sui generis every one?
Are you able to see influence in any circumstance when the evolution of the mythological texts cannot be documented?
Yes.
How about animal sacrifice? Many ancient religions killed animals and burned them for the gods. Yet I don’t know that the evolution of the theology can be documented moving from one country to the next. Is it your theory that animal sacrifice emerged independently in each country – after all there is no clearly documented evolution of practice?
No that is not my theory. Nobody knows how or why animal sacrifice appeared in most cultures. Possibly certain cultures developed it independantly, then others borrowed it. Nobody knows, so I have no theories.
How about divine dreams?
Prophesy?
Miracles?
Angels?
Gods?
The flat round earth with the dome of the solid firmament?
Again it is difficult to know exactly why or how these very basic ideas developed anywhere. To take Prophesy for example, one culture where we kind of know how it developed is the Chinese transition from Shang to Zhou. Read any book on that transition and you’ll see the complex nature of the development of prophecy. So I certainly wouldn’t be willing to have some grand theory about the origins of any one of these things for all cultures in general.
How about the mysteries? We can’t document the evolution of the theology of union with the god / salvation from Orpheus to Dionysus to Eleusis to Samothrace to Osiris to Jesus. Does that mean to you that the mystery religions each emerged independently? Sui generis every one?
No, of course I don’t. My point is simply that we know very little about the Mithraic Mysteries and certainly not enough to conclude much about its links to Christianity. That this mean I view all links between all religions as supect, it means that you have to at least have some strong historical evidence beyond similarities, because we have counterexamples of gods who are virtually identical but are totally unrelated, e.g. Ea/Enki and Zei.
That this mean I view all links between all religions as supect, it means that you have to at least have some strong historical evidence beyond similarities
Should read:
This doesn’t mean I view all links between all religions as supect, it means that you have to at least have some strong historical evidence beyond similarities
This doesn’t mean I view all links between all religions as suspect, it means that you have to at least have some strong historical evidence beyond similarities
I would agree that where evidence is available at all, connections would be more certain if specific evidence of syncretism existed. But for much of ancient history no meaningful evidence of any kind exists, beyond scattered isolated mentions of this or that practice. We don’t even know what the theologies of Mithras were, or in what century they developed, let alone having a meaningful history of their development.
So in cases where syncretism did happen but all evidence is lost, your apriori assumption of independence will give the wrong answer.
we have counterexamples of gods who are virtually identical but are totally unrelated, e.g. Ea/Enki and Zei.
Non sequitir. These myths were separated by thousands of miles and developed in different cultures. This seems to me an entirely different from religions in cultural and geographic continuity.
So in cases where syncretism did happen but all evidence is lost, your apriori assumption of independence will give the wrong answer.
I think you are being overly philosophical. I have no “apriori assumption of independence”. I’m not assuming anything at all. I’m saying that if you have no strong evidence, then you simply don’t know. I’m not assuming apriori that with little evidence to support a connection mean they simply must be independent. Surely saying “i don’t know, because there is little too support it” isn’t that radical.
Non sequitir
I don’t know how my comparison of Ea/Enki and Zei is a non sequitir. It may be a poor counterexample, but surely it isn’t an actual non sequitir. What were the premises?
At the end of the day most historians would not say with confidence that there is any connection between the Mithraic mysteries and Christianity and even if there were one which way it ran or even how strong the connections were. This does not involve something as philosophically grand as having apriori assumptions of independence, but rather the simple fact that no strong evidence = you do not know.
no strong evidence = you do not know.
Tautology. Conclusion hidden in the method.
Ignores indirect and un-strong evidence.
Fails, unreasonably, to find syncretism among the mysteries.
Better would be: “no strong evidence, can’t be absolutely certain. Life’s a bitch. Must therefore reason it though to a best-estimate probability using the imperfect and incomplete evidence that is available.”
So we’re agreed lads. Christianity may well have Hellenistic influences as it emerges as a social force but all in all, a thoroughly Jewish sect.
Glad we could resolve it.
Tautology. Conclusion hidden in the method.
Ignores indirect and un-strong evidence.
Fails, unreasonably, to find syncretism among the mysteries.
Better would be: “no strong evidence, can’t be absolutely certain. Life’s a bitch. Must therefore reason it though to a best-estimate probability using the imperfect and incomplete evidence that is available.”
Remember the format we are writing in here. I’m well aware that what I said is strictly a tautology, but I’m not writing my PhD thesis here. Obviously I know we must reason based on the facts we have.
What this boils down to is that most academic historians do not think there is any likelyhood that Christianity was influenced, based on any available evidence strong or otherwise.
So we’re agreed lads. Christianity may well have Hellenistic influences as it emerges as a social force but all in all, a thoroughly Jewish sect.
Glad we could resolve it.
Yes, agreed.
we must reason based on the facts we have
But you don’t. The extent of your analysis has been, “Can’t be proven, can’t be sure, end of story.”
most academic historians do not think there is any likelihood that Christianity was influenced,
I am not aware that ‘most academic historians’ have been polled on the question. Are you able say on what basis you know this claim to be true?
Most books concerning the Mythraic mysteries end with the conclusion that they didn’t influence Christianity much or at all based on what we know. See:
Clauss, Manfred (2001). Gordon, Richard (trans.). ed. The Roman cult of Mithras.
Which I have actually read, I’m not just throwing references out there, I bought it when I visited San Clemente.
But you don’t. The extent of your analysis has been, “Can’t be proven, can’t be sure, end of story.”
Yes and what is wrong with that? In cases with very little historic evidence, either textual or otherwise, this is what we must say. The simple fact of the matter is that for the Mythraic mysteries we have very little facts and those that we have do not support Christianity being influenced by it. I don’t understand why we must conclude something. You are making it out that we must come to some definite conclusion about the Mithraic Mysteries come hell or high water and that I have apriori assumptions about this or that.
However although I’m saying “Can’t be proven, can’t be sure”, I’m not saying “end of story”. If some more evidence comes to light then maybe we can learn more. However as it stands we can’t really and it is silly to say that we have to.