Mithraism and Christianity

[Holly3278]

What do you all think about the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity? I personally find them to be very intriguing.

Here are some links that I found concerning this:

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/mithraism.html

http://meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotamia/Mithraism/mithraism_and_christianity_i.htm

http://www.jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html

I have no idea how accurate the above links are. I just picked them out from a Google search. Anyway, what do you all think about the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity?

[Toto]

Hi Holly - you might want to search for Mithra or Mithraism in this forum before jumping in with a seemingly innocent question.

Mithraism and Christianity were both popular religions in the Roman Empire, so there are many parallels - but you can't tell if one religion borrowed from the other, or they both just breathed in the same air.

I can tell you that there is a certain amount of misinformation on Mithra floating around the internet.

[Kharakov]

Not to mention that those that worship Mothra will be disappointed when Godzilla kicks its ass in Godzilla vs. Mothra and the Snake People.

[Roger Pearse]

What do you all think about the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity? I personally find them to be very intriguing.

Here are some links that I found concerning this:

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/mithraism.html


Note the lack of references to ancient sources for statements made about Mithras. This usually indicates hearsay at work. I notice a reference to Freke and Gandy, about whom other posters will no doubt inform you.

"3. Emperor Constantine officially fused Mithraism and Christianity" - almost every word of this paragraph is rubbish, and the source given is a geocities website, itself rubbish.

Grabbing an example:

"During the 1st century BC, a cult of Mithra, made much progress in Rome, after enduring persecution, when some Emperors adopted the religion..."

Yet Mithras may not have existed in the 1st century BC. There is no record of persecution; it was a perfectly legal mystery cult. Note that lack of data on *which* emperors (isn't this something about Caracalla from the Historia Augusta? Anyone remember?)

The writer doesn't understand the difference between Mithras and Sol Invictus.

"Christianity became a synthesis of Mithraistic thought on eternal life gained from the blood of the sacrificed saviour (like a bull), the ultimate sacrifice, and Jewish rituals of ritual animal sacrifice."

I suppose if you know nothing about either Christianity or Mithras such a statement is possible.

This page is anti-factual rubbish. Check it by seeking ancient sources for everything said. They do not exist.


http://meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotamia/Mithraism/mithraism_and_christianity_i.htm


"Most of the research into Mithraism, a religion with many parallels to Christianity, comes from two writers, Cumont and Ulansey. Some Similarities Between Mithraism and Christianity Among the recorded similarities are:

Virgin birth
Twelve followers
Killing and resurrection
Miracles
Birthdate on December 25
Morality
Mankind's savior
Known as the Light of the world"

All rubbish, I'm afraid.

Cumont wrote over a century ago, and his ideas are not held now. Ulansey holds fringe ideas. Neither would endorse this stuff.


http://www.jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html


That's an orthodox Jewish hate-site, by the way. I remember it because I once went to their forum, asked to see the ancient evidence for one or two of their statements, got abused for asking, and was then banned on the spot.

"1) Hundreds of years before Jesus, according to the Mithraic religion, three Wise Men of Persia came to visit the baby savior-god Mithra, bring him gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense.
2) Mithra was born on December 25 as told in the “Great Religions of the World”, page 330; “…it was the winter solstice celebrated by ancients as the birthday of Mithraism’s sun god”.c
3) According to Mithraism, before Mithra died on a cross, he celebrated a “Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac.
4) After the death of Mithra, his body was laid to rest in a rock tomb.
5) Mithra had a celibate priesthood.
6) Mithra ascended into heaven during the spring (Passover) equinox (the time when the sun crosses the equator making night and day of equal length). "

Every statement in the above 6 points is factually untrue.


I have no idea how accurate the above links are. I just picked them out from a Google search.


The problem with this approach is the willingness of a few rather dishonest individuals (I would include J.D.Stone in this category) to make up lies for reasons of religious hate; and the tendency of all human beings to then repeat as fact stuff that they have read somewhere and found convenient as if it was fact. On matters of political and religious hate, you will find loads of this sort of stuff. (e.g. if you look at anti-semitic sites you'll find that they read very similarly to such material -- the long lists of odd-sounding 'facts' without proper references is a dead giveaway).


Anyway, what do you all think about the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity?

Some people suppose that if they can draw some kind of a parallel between two things, this proves connection, indeed derivation. This, of course, is wrong, unless the parallel is very close and the instances very characteristic and unusual.

An example of getting this wrong would be Atlantis cultists. They point to pyramids in Egypt and pyramids in Mexico, and assert that this proves Atlantis existed. In reality human beings tend to pile blocks of stone on top of one another without needing to see another example.

There are a few genuine parallels between Mithras and Christianity. E.g. Mithras did have seven different ritual meals, one of which was of bread and water; and Justin Martyr refers to this as a mockery of the Christian communion. Clearly he refers to some local circumstance; for ritual meals were a feature of a great number of ancient religions, including Judaism. But such parallels are all of a trivial kind.

I hope that helps. I didn't want to write an essay, but did want to give some kind of reply useful to you on this.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[PhilVaz]

As a Catholic, I wanted to honestly assess the whole Mithraism vs. Christianity question after viewing "The God Who Wasn't There." What I give to Mithras (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Mithras):

-- Virgin Born? No, born from a rock.
-- A "Son of God" ? No.
-- http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/greencheck.gifA Savior? Yes, a divinity of light and salvation.
-- Performed miracles? No.
-- http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/greencheck.gifCommunal Meal of Bread/Wine? Yes, but was not considered the "flesh and blood" of God (Mithra).
-- Crucified? No.
-- Resurrected? No.
-- http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/greencheck.gifAscended / Descended ? Yes, ascends to heaven in the Sun's chariot.
-- Divine Judge? No.

My sources: "Mithra" and "Mithraism" in The Encyclopedia of Religion (1987), and The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and his Mysteries by Manfred Clauss (Routledge, 2000).

Manfred Clauss in The Roman Cult of Mithras, chapter 14 "Mithras and Christ" discusses the relationship between the two religions:

"...the entire discussion is largely unhistorical. To raise the issue of a competition between the two religions is to assume that Christians and Mithraists had the same aims. Such a view exaggerates the missionary zeal -- itself a Christian idea -- of the other mystery cults. None of them aimed to become the sole legitimate religion of the Roman empire, because they offered an entirely individual and personal salvation. The alternative 'Mithras or Christ?' is wrongly framed, because it postulates a competitive situation which, in the eyes of Mithraists, simply did not exist....We should not simply transpose Christian views and terms in this area onto other mystery cults. 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 similarities do not at all suggest mutual influence....there are more substantial parallels at the ritual level, particularly the ritual meal...." (Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras, page 168-169)

On the communion or ritual meal, which both St. Justin Martyr (1 Apology 66, c. 150 AD) and Tertullian (c. 200 AD) recognized as similar to the Catholic Eucharist, Clauss concludes:

"The Mithraists evidently believed that they were reborn through the consumption of bread and wine. The food was of course not simply actual or literal food, but also food in the metaphorical sense, which nourished souls after death: the meal was the guarantee of their ascension into the undying light. In the case of these analogies, there can be no question of imitation in either direction. The offering of bread and wine is known in virtually all ancient cultures, and the meal as a means of binding the faithful together and uniting them to the deity was a feature common to many religions. It represented one of the oldest means of manifesting unification with the spiritual, and the appropriation of spiritual qualities....In the ritual meal, Mithras' victory over the bull was celebrated and reproduced. There can be no doubt that the Christian apologists were quite right about its importance for the cult of Mithras as a whole....The ritual meal was probably simply a component of regular common meals. Such meals have always been an essential part of religious assembly; eating and drinking together creates community and renders visible the fact that those who take part are members of one and the same group." (Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras, pages 109, 112-113)

There is a newer source on Mithraism I skimmed, but didn't quote from:

The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire by Roger Beck (Oxford Univ Press, 2006)

In addition, the whole Roman Mithras cult got going around the end of the first century AD, virtually too late to effect first century (New Testament) Christianity. A short article by Catholic Answers is also decent: Jesus and the Pagan Gods (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605fea2.asp).

All one has to do is visit a university library, find the best modern books you can published by reputable scholars: normally these are various university publishers, Routledge, etc. If one uses the Internet for such "research" you have to be very discerning to sift the wheat from the chaff (Matt 3:12; Luke 3:17). :)

Phil P

[vid]

Roger: In your reply, i lack link to your own list of primary references to mithra cult ;)

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/

[PhilVaz]

Khar << Not to mention that those that worship Mothra will be disappointed when Godzilla kicks its ass in Godzilla vs. Mothra and the Snake People. >>

Mothra, or Mothman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mothman_Prophecies)? :D

Phil P

[robto]

"The Mithraists evidently believed that they were reborn through the consumption of bread and wine. The food was of course not simply actual or literal food, but also food in the metaphorical sense, which nourished souls after death: the meal was the guarantee of their ascension into the undying light.


Phil, thanks for posting these quotes. Does Clauss give any support for this claim about rebirth? I understood that there are very few references to rebirth in the mystery religions, and I haven't heard of any for Mithraism, let alone references that link rebirth and the meal. I wonder if he gets this entirely from Justin. Clauss seems to be doing what he warned against in the earlier passage: transposing Christian views onto other mystery cults.

[PhilVaz]

<< Does Clauss give any support for this claim about rebirth? I understood that there are very few references to rebirth in the mystery religions, and I haven't heard of any for Mithraism, let alone references that link rebirth and the meal. >>

I would have to go back to that source. I photocopied several pages from Clauss for my long "parallel pagan" article, but would have to find those again. Clauss might not document that part, but there is a bibliography and plenty of sources given in the book. My section on Mithras (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Mithras) summarizes much of the data found in the Encyclopedia of Religion article (1987) which is quite detailed. Clauss (2000) is a very good book, with nice colorful pictures if I remember right. Roger Beck's book is another excellent source that is newer (2006). I would have to re-check those at my university library ( www.USF.edu ) on the rebirth question.

Phil P

[andrewcriddle]

One of the problems with Justin's comparison of Christianity and Mithraism is that he seems to be comparing the use of bread and water in Christianity and Mithraism rather than comparing the use of bread and wine.

Some suggest that by water Justin really means heavily watered wine, (which was the normal way wine was used in the ancient world), but I am dubious. See http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2007/07/sacraments-in-mithraism-and-early.html

Andrew Criddle

[PhilVaz]

Andrew << Some suggest that by water Justin really means heavily watered wine, (which was the normal way wine was used in the ancient world), but I am dubious. >>

Yes, it might be wine mixed with water. The same as the Catholic priest does at Mass in the Catholic Eucharist today. In Catholicism the symbolism means (1) union of Christ with His faithful people (according to St. Cyprian), and/or (2) a reference to the Gospel account of flowing blood and water from Christ's side. The old Catholic Encyclopedia on "Liturgical Use of Water" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15564a.htm) states: "With regard to the water mingled with the wine in the Mass, the Fathers from the earliest times have tried to find reasons why the Church uses a mixed chalice though the Gospel narrative implies that Christ consecrated pure wine." So the early Fathers recognized the "problem." Clauss says in my quote the Mithraic meal was simply bread and wine, but he may go into more detail in that chapter. I'd have to re-check.

Phil P

[Minimalist]

Note the lack of references to ancient sources for statements made about Mithras.


That's true of course, but then we should also consider the wave of christian book-burning in the aftermath of their coming to power. To complain about a lack of historical sources when it was christians who ran around destroying whatever had been written against them is much like the traditional definition of chutzpah: Killing one's parents and then begging the court for mercy because you are an orphan.

Justin Martyr wrote of the similarities and the rather asinine doctrine which came to be known as diabolical mimicry because there were similarities which caused early christians some concerns....not because there weren't. A rough modern equivalent would be for some public figure to call a press conference to declare that he was not a child molester when no one had accused him of being a child molester.

[Toto]

To be fair, I think we lack a lot of detailed information about the mysteries because they were hidden, not meant to be recorded for outsiders to know about.

[Roger Pearse]

Note the lack of references to ancient sources for statements made about Mithras.

That's true of course, but then we should also consider the wave of christian book-burning in the aftermath of their coming to power.


Um, but no such events took place, not during the 4th century at any rate.

Constantine did order that the works of Arius be burned after the first council of Nicaea, as Socrates and Sozomen and Theodoret record (iirc). (But Christian heretics are not relevant to your statement, I think).

Furthermore, is there any evidence that even this limited purge actually happened? Certainly Theodosius II in 480-ish enacted the same law about Porphyry's work again, which rather demonstrates that the edict of Constantine was not carried out. So we have precisely one piece of pagan literature ordered burned, but not burned. Do you know of more?

Ancient literature is 99% lost. But the reason for that is the destruction of the society to which it was of value, not some kind of process such as that which obtained in the age of printing, such as the Index expurgatorius of the Spanish Inquisition. In the era of manuscripts, when any reader could be a copier, this seems anachronistic anyway.

Book burnings certainly did occur -- and throughout antiquity -- but they tended to be symbolic. Rather more significant is whether people wanted the works, and so would arrange for them to be copied.

I don't know of any evidence of mass destruction of pagan literature. But of course I am willing to be informed of ancient sources documenting these.


To complain about a lack of historical sources when it was christians who ran around destroying whatever had been written against them is much like the traditional definition of chutzpah: Killing one's parents and then begging the court for mercy because you are an orphan.


If such events had occurred, for such a reason, and the comment was made with such a motive, no doubt this comment would be justified. As it is, it seems rather hasty.

Conspiracy theorists often make wild claims. When asked for evidence, they proudly reply that the evidence has been hidden by Them (whoever Them may be varies), as if this was an adequate reason for their inability to offer evidence. But of course this is rather silly. If they have no evidence for their theories, how do they know that these theories are not imaginary; if they are not merely flights of fancy, they must be based on *something*, and that something is called 'evidence'.

So it is with history. Whatever we say about Mithras must be based on literary, epigraphic or archaeological sources. Anything else is fiction.


Justin Martyr wrote of the similarities and the rather asinine doctrine which came to be known as diabolical mimicry because there were similarities which caused early christians some concerns....not because there weren't.

Whatever it is that we wish to assert, it is usually better to be specific: i.e. produce the evidence from ancient sources and then make explicitly the argument showing how the conclusion is forced by the evidence.

As it is, I am afraid that I am unclear what you believe you are saying -- and you will understand, I am sure, if I do not simply presume that you are articulating some kind of stereotyped argument or prejudice, or try to make what I imagine your argument might be for you.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[vid]

So we have precisely one piece of pagan literature ordered burned, but not burned. Do you know of more?
Yep, lot more, actually everyhing "not in absolute agreement with Nicean trinitarian faith". Unfortunately, I am unable to locate site from where I downloaded these PDFs anymore. If I recall correctly, it's english translation of Codex Theodosianus. There was lot of books, I only downloaded some. I understand you can read latin, there are lot of easily found latin version of codex theodosianus, please check.

Following comes from very first chapter of very first book:


1.1.3. Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian to Hormisda, Praetorian Prefect.
1. We decree that all things which Porphyrius, impelled by his insanity, or any one else, has written against the worship of the Christians, among whomsoever found, shall be delivered to the fire. For we want no writings which provoke God to ire, and offend human minds to even come to the knowledge of men.
2. [...]
3. Since it has, moreover, come to our pious ears, that some persons have written
and published ambiguous doctrines, which are not in absolute agreement with the
orthodox faith laid down my the holy council of the holy fathers who assembled at Nicea and Ephesus, and by Cyrillus of blessed memory, once bishop of the great city of
Alexandria, we order that such books whether written before or during this time, particularly those of Nestorius, shall be burned and delivered to complete destruction, so that they may not even come to the knowledge of any one. Persons who continue to have and read such writings or books shall be punished by death. Besides, no one shall be permitted as we have said, to acknowledge or teach any creed, except the one laid down at Nicea and Ephesus.

Point 1 is what you mentioned, but point 3 explicitly commands to burn any book "not in absolute agreement with Nicean faith". Basically, this book explicitly forbids any form of other opinion than nicean orthodox one, not just books, also public assembly, personal opinion, expressing opinion, entering town when holding different opinion, etc. All this in very first 3 short chapters of huge Theodosianus codex.

Do you imply this was ignored by people in chrage, and his commands were not fulfilled?

I am not accusing you of dishonesty (I have read many your article and they all seemed very honest to me), but I wonder how it is possible (if this is indeed single document and sole source of Porphyry condemnation) that you remember point 1 of 3rd chapter, but don't remember point 3 of same chapter, and other chapters explicitly commanding people to hold only this single opinion, and forbidding any form of all nonagreeing opinions.

[GakuseiDon]

Justin Martyr wrote of the similarities and the rather asinine doctrine which came to be known as diabolical mimicry because there were similarities which caused early christians some concerns....not because there weren't.
Actually, that's wrong. Justin Martyr wrote of the similarities because there weren't similarities, at least from a pagan perspective. That is, the pagans thought Christianity was something weird and different; Justin was trying to convince them that this was not the case, that Christianity shared similarities with pagan religions. It was lack of similarities that concerned Christians at that time. Justin famously said (to paraphrase) "We propound nothing new or different to you lot!" Those are not the words of someone concerned about the similarities.

A rough modern equivalent would be for some public figure to call a press conference to declare that he was not a child molester when no one had accused him of being a child molester.
No. Justin Martyr was responding to accusations that Christianity was something weird. His defense was to say that Christians didn't propound anything different from the pagans. The "diabolical mimicry" charge was that the devil caused pagans to copy from the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish prophets, but that the devil got them wrong. That's why, in Justin's view, the pagans didn't recognise the similarities between Christianity and pagan myths.

[Toto]

I think that Justin was more concerned about defending Christianity against the charge of subversion than "weirdness" or a general lack of similarities to the other religions that the Romans tolerated.

[vid]

Unfortunately, I am unable to locate site from where I downloaded these PDFs anymore. If I recall correctly, it's english translation of Codex Theodosianus.

Now I have found it. It was not Codex Theodosianus, it was Corpus Juris Civilis, which apparently incorporates some laws by Theodosianus, such as those 3 I mentioned. Link follows: http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume&justinian/default.asp

Certainly Theodosius II in 480-ish enacted the same law about Porphyry's work again, which rather demonstrates that the edict of Constantine was not carried out. So we have precisely one piece of pagan literature ordered burned, but not burned. Do you know of more?
I am sorry, but this sounds to me like saying: "Soviet Union ordered Solzhenicyn works to be confiscated in 1964. However, in 1973, it ordered his works to be confiscated again. That means, order was not carried out in 1964.". You seem to ignore possibility that Constatine's regime tried to censor out Porphyry, but simply failed to do so, and so Theodosius tried it again.

[Roger Pearse]

So we have precisely one piece of pagan literature ordered burned, but not burned. Do you know of more?

Yep, lot more, actually everyhing "not in absolute agreement with Nicean trinitarian faith".


Um, but aren't we discussing pagan literature here...?


Following comes from very first chapter of very first book [Codex Theodosianus]:


1.1.3. Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian to Hormisda, Praetorian Prefect.
1. We decree that all things which Porphyrius, impelled by his insanity, or any one else, has written against the worship of the Christians, among whomsoever found, shall be delivered to the fire. For we want no writings which provoke God to ire, and offend human minds to even come to the knowledge of men.
2. [...]
3. Since it has, moreover, come to our pious ears, that some persons have written and published ambiguous doctrines, which are not in absolute agreement with the orthodox faith laid down my the holy council of the holy fathers who assembled at Nicea and Ephesus, and by Cyrillus of blessed memory, once bishop of the great city of Alexandria, we order that such books whether written before or during this time, particularly those of Nestorius, shall be burned and delivered to complete destruction, so that they may not even come to the knowledge of any one. Persons who continue to have and read such writings or books shall be punished by death. Besides, no one shall be permitted as we have said, to acknowledge or teach any creed, except the one laid down at Nicea and Ephesus.

Point 1 is what you mentioned...


Certainly; but we still have just a single book?

Can you tell me where the translation of the code was? It might be archived on google.


... but point 3 explicitly commands to burn any book "not in absolute agreement with Nicean faith". Basically, this book explicitly forbids any form of other opinion than nicean orthodox one, not just books, also public assembly, personal opinion, expressing opinion, entering town when holding different opinion, etc. All this in very first 3 short chapters of huge Theodosianus codex.


There are several presumptions in all this, which I don't think we can accept, tho.

Firstly we were talking about evidence that *pagan* books were burned. Now unfortunately the existence of stuff in law books is not evidence; nor is the violent language in which it is couched. As the introduction to the English translation of this work indicates, based on statements in the codex itself, late emperors had very great difficulty getting their laws actually carried out. So we have to ask what if any effect this had. As for the language, Cameron and Hall in their Life of Constantine remark that every emperor after Diocletian phrased his laws as violently as possible; but that this reflected weakness, not strength.

Secondly I am not that clear why this passage, plainly referring to the Nestorian disputes, is supposed to have anything to do with *pagan* literature? This is a summary, surely, of the various condemnations of books to be burned arising from various councils, including those of Arius (hence the reference to Nicaea), and running down to Ephesus in 433 and the condemnation of Nestorius? I can see that *you* feel that this, as phrased, extends to cover all sorts of things, but I see something plainly discussing the councils, not pagan literature at all.

I'm nervous that we are wandering off-topic, so I feel that we need to try to keep clear in mind what we are discussing here. The allegation is that all the evidence about Mithras was destroyed in a "wave" of book burnings. So far we have one book, which is ordered destroyed twice, a century apart (so plainly not destroyed the first time). We incidentally have the burnings of heretical books ordered after various Christian councils, which of course is neither here nor there, and for which we don't seem to have much evidence of actual actions.

I hope that I've addressed everything! Incidentally I've never memorised the codex theodosianus (!) -- I recall the condemnation of Porphyry by Theodosius, probably from a secondary source, and the theological stuff goes without saying in the 5th century. I'd have scanned the English of the codex by now, except that it's owned by a bunch of *lawyers*.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Roger Pearse]

Certainly Theodosius II in 480-ish enacted the same law about Porphyry's work again, which rather demonstrates that the edict of Constantine was not carried out. So we have precisely one piece of pagan literature ordered burned, but not burned. Do you know of more?

I am sorry, but this sounds to me like saying: "Soviet Union ordered Solzhenicyn works to be confiscated in 1964. However, in 1973, it ordered his works to be confiscated again. That means, order was not carried out in 1964.".


That would seem to be logical, unless it simply means *more* works written since?


You seem to ignore possibility that Constatine's regime tried to censor out Porphyry, but simply failed to do so, and so Theodosius tried it again.

Well, I'd like to see evidence that it tried, actually. We have clear evidence that it didn't try very hard, because the book still existed! (I don't suppose Theodosius tried hard either). It's a mistake to suppose that any ancient society was anything like as tightly organised as a modern one, still less a totalitarian state. Emperors couldn't get things done, so slack were the nerves of the state.

But you know, it wouldn't make a lot of difference either way; one book is not a "wave" of destroying pagan literature.

Incidentally some people might presume in this that all Porphyry's works were condemned. This is not so. On the contrary the others were valued and generally preserved by the Greek Christian empire. Think of the Isagogue.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[andrewcriddle]

Incidentally some people might presume in this that all Porphyry's works were condemned. This is not so. On the contrary the others were valued and generally preserved by the Greek Christian empire. Think of the Isagogue.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

One of Porphyry's works that survived is the Cave of the Nymphs
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/porphyry_cave_of_nymphs_02_translation.htm
Which is an important source for his views about Mithraism.

Andrew Criddle

[vid]

Roger: Thanks, I see your point now. I am not aware of any more direct literaly references to burning pagan books.

However I still think this happened along with all other forms of suppression against pagans. I don't mean it was "one wave" that destroyed it all quickly, more like many repeated waves which slowly filtered out writings. I will try to build my case:

As for suppresion of Mithraism by Catholic Roman state, following is collection of laws concerning paganism from Corpus Juris Civilis: http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume&justinian/Book%201PDF/Book%201-11.pdf

In short:
354 - All temples closed, all pagan religions banned, those still keep practicing these religions killed
385 - Torture for those who sacriface
399 - Ban to destroy pagan art (quess it happened, otherwise no law would be needed). Pagan literature to be confiscated by authorities!
399 - "As we have already destroyed profane rites by a salutary law", old traditions reallowed but without religious parts
415 - All pagan buildings confiscated.
423 - Ban to attack Jews and pagans who were living quitely, again, I only see reason for this law if such attacks were common
451 - Ban to reopen temples even as tourist attractions. Desire to "let our be free" of pagan art. Death for those who sacrifice, or who know about such people and don't accuse them.
??? - Death to all who are still pagans. Unbaptized must register themselves, and attend church, their property confiscated and they are forbidden from holding any property, they are subject to punishment. All children must be baptized.

You see that for those 100 years from which these laws come, pagan temples were closed, pillaged, torn down, paganism completely forbidden under thread of death. We don't have any record what exactly happened to pagan books, except for one decree which commanded people to hand them over to authorities. Do you suppose all this even *could* happen without mass burning of pagan literature? What did those christian authorities do with literature that was confiscated, archive it?

If these laws were even vagualy carried out (as repeating same law again and again suggests), they still had devastating effect on paganism, mithraism included. And AFAIK it indeed did cease out in 100 or so years following adoption of christianity by empire. I think that saying christianity is responsible for lack of information on mithraism is justified.

[Roger Pearse]

Roger: Thanks, I see your point now. I am not aware of any more direct literaly references to burning pagan books.


I quite understand. I'm not sure that they exist, not least because the attitude of both the state and the fathers towards pagan literature was not of that kind. Indeed the school syllabus continued to be based on Greek classical literature until 1453.


However I still think this happened along with all other forms of suppression against pagans. I don't mean it was "one wave" that destroyed it all quickly, more like many repeated waves which slowly filtered out writings.


I think that this is to confuse two different things; the official adoption of Christianity as the state religion under Theodosius, and the consequent programs of temple closures (and remember this happened sporadically over time -- this wasn't a modern state), and the loss of ancient literature written in antiquity, which didn't really happen in a sudden way (unless we include the sack of Constantinople in 1204). I would advise against this.


I will try to build my case:

As for suppresion of Mithraism by Catholic Roman state, following is collection of laws concerning paganism from Corpus Juris Civilis: http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume&justinian/Book%201PDF/Book%201-11.pdf


Although this is a text several centuries later than the Council of Nicaea.

Again, I draw your attention to what I wrote above about the distance between what emperors enacted, the violence of what they wrote, and what actually happened. (I don't want to repeat this more times than I have to!)

Points of detail:


In short:
354 - All temples closed, all pagan religions banned, those still keep practicing these religions killed


Paganism was the state religion in 354. I know that your source attributes this to Constantius, but it must be a much later edict.


385 - Torture for those who sacriface


No... this is an edict against divination, attempting to predict the future.


399 - Ban to destroy pagan art (guess it happened, otherwise no law would be needed). Pagan literature to be confiscated by authorities!


You mean this? --

1.11.3. Emperors Arcadius & Honorius to Macrabius and to Proclianus (Vicar of the Five Provinces). As we prohibit sacrifices, so too, we want to preserve all ornaments of public buildings. Persons who attempt to destroy them cannot rely as authority to do so by bringing forward any rescript or law. Documents of that sort shall be taken from them and referred to us. Given at Ravenna January 29 (399). C. Th. 16.10.15."

But surely this bans anyone from attacking temples and other public buildings, not encourages it? It protects art, not otherwise.

The "documents" are not pagan books; they are imperial rescripts or laws being used to justify the attacks -- the order is to forward them to Constantinople, not pagan books.

This perhaps indicates the popular hostility to official paganism in the aftermath of Julian's attempts to reinstate it. It also probably reflects the sort of thing that is seen also at the reformation; the unscrupulous see a chance to get rich by looting what was previously untouchable.


399 - "As we have already destroyed profane rites by a salutary law", old traditions reallowed but without religious parts


I'm not sure what the relevance of this might be.


415 - All pagan buildings confiscated.


Um, all *temples* made state property. Clearly, then, this had not generally happened. Probably didn't happen even then.


423 - Ban to attack Jews and pagans who were living quietly, again, I only see reason for this law if such attacks were common


The law protects jews and pagans, in other words. But how does this relate?

I'm sorry, but your argument is really very diffuse. I am unclear what all this is supposed to demonstrate.


451 - Ban to reopen temples even as tourist attractions. Desire to "let our be free" of pagan art. Death for those who sacrifice, or who know about such people and don't accuse them.


You mean this?

"1.11.7. Emperors Valentinian and Marcian to Palladius, Praetorian Prefect. No one shall re-open the temples, already formerly closed, for the purposes of veneration and adoration. Let our age be free from rendering the pristine honor to nefarious, execrable statues, hanging garlands on impious doors of temples, lighting fires at profane altars, burning incense on them, slaughtering victims, pouring wine from bowls as a libation, and considering (what in fact it) sacrilege as religion."

No question arises of 'tourist' use -- this is about use as temples for worship of pagan deities. No question of 'art' arises either.

I must say that I don't quite see why any atheist would object to the actions of Marcian here?


??? - Death to all who are still pagans...


Again, not what the edict actually says.


You see that for those 100 years from which these laws come, pagan temples were closed, pillaged, torn down, paganism completely forbidden under thread of death.


No, I don't see this. What I see is some edicts, which mostly don't say these things. Please don't exaggerate.


We don't have any record what exactly happened to pagan books, except for one decree which commanded people to hand them over to authorities.


I'm afraid that you misread the edict.


Do you suppose all this even *could* happen without mass burning of pagan literature?


Easily. Laws are words unless carried out.


If these laws were even vagualy carried out (as repeating same law again and again suggests), they still had devastating effect on paganism, mithraism included.


The repetition by itself rather indicates that nothing much happened. The closing of the temples was in general a gradual process, as we know from other sources.

The link of all this with Mithras and its sources is non-existent.


And AFAIK it indeed did cease out in 100 or so years following adoption of christianity by empire. I think that saying christianity is responsible for lack of information on mithraism is justified.

Only in the sense in which the death of paganism -- however achieved -- naturally means that we don't have pagan temples at every corner to consult. In that sense, yes, the victory of Christianity means that our knowledge of paganism is limited. Whether that is a non-trivial or meaningful statement might be debated (but not by me).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[vid]

Although this is a text several centuries later than the Council of Nicaea.
Hmm, quoted texts appear to come from 4th and 5th century, altough I am not competent to judge if these dates are correct. Fact that they were collected in 6th century doesn't matter, if they were .

Again, I draw your attention to what I wrote above about the distance between what emperors enacted, the violence of what they wrote, and what actually happened. (I don't want to repeat this more times than I have to!)
I understand this, but still it at least allowed things to happen, and I suppose this decree had at least some effect. If it was carried out in small measure, and then repeated by following emperors and repeatedly carried out in small measure, resulting effect is still big. Or, do you think that it was possible such edict was completely ignored, and there were no people who invoked this advantage against their "enemies", and did what law allowed them? That seems unlikely to me.

Paganism was the state religion in 354. I know that your source attributes this to Constantius, but it must be a much later edict.
Hmm, bad news for my source :(

No... this is an edict against divination, attempting to predict the future.
Correct, my bad, sorry.

But surely this bans anyone from attacking temples and other public buildings, not encourages it? It protects art, not otherwise.
Yes, that's what i meant by "ban to destroy". Maybe my english usage was wrong? In such case sorry, english is not my primary language. If emperor had to ban this, that is indication such things did happen.

The "documents" are not pagan books; they are imperial rescripts or laws being used to justify the attacks -- the order is to forward them to Constantinople, not pagan books.
Again correct, looks like i was too hasty in reading this, sorry.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this might be.
It implies that old religions were already destroyed. I suppose that if laws were uneffective, they'd say something like "As we have already commanded to destroy", not "as we have already destroyed"?

The law protects jews and pagans, in other words. But how does this relate?
Such law suggest to me, that there was something to protect them from, otherwise law wouldn't be formulated. To me, this appears that terror on practicing pagans was extended to nonpracticing ones, and that was condemned by this law. If there was no terror on nonpracticing pagans, what was purpose of this law?

I must say that I don't quite see why any atheist would object to the actions of Marcian here?
I don't object. I simply listed it as another law favoring banishing of paganism.

I'm sorry, but your argument is really very diffuse. I am unclear what all this is supposed to demonstrate.
Sorry, I apparently didn't make it clear enough:
- There were bloody conflicts among various churches, pagan and christian, in these times. One example that comes to my mind is Hypatia lynching, I believe you can remember much more.
- Now in such situation, laws suddenly sanctioned one conflicting side, and gave it powerful weapon. I would be surprised, if christians wouldn't use this in their conflicts with paganism.
- In years following these edicts, those pagan religions disappeared rather quickly.

I see all this as evidence, that disappearing of various pagan religions was more than just peaceful change of mindset of roman population. I see strong indices of forceful banishing of pagan religions, mithraism included.

Easily. Laws are words unless carried out.
There were people who had motivation to carry out this law. Why do you think that christians who were "fighting" with pagans for several centuries would NOT carry out these laws, if they had such a chance?

The repetition by itself rather indicates that nothing much happened. The closing of the temples was in general a gradual process, as we know from other sources.
Please list some sources. I admit my knowledge in this area isn't really very good one, and I'd like to extend it.

The link of all this with Mithras and its sources is non-existent.
Well, it was one of pagan religions, wasn't it?

I hope I explained my argument properly now. Looking forward to your reply.

[Roger Pearse]

This seems to be starting to range over a vast number of issues and assertions. Pardon me, but I don't have the time to engage with all those.

The point at issue is the evidence for a "wave" of book burnings as a reason why we have limited evidence about Mithras. This I think we have established is not in fact true.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[lycanthrope]

That's true of course, but then we should also consider the wave of christian book-burning in the aftermath of their coming to power.


Um, but no such events took place, not during the 4th century at any rate.



hi RP,

i came across this webpage concerning book burning and would like ur opinion on this subject

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bookburn.html#1

"The moment Christianity came into power in the fourth century, books that do not conform to its teaching were ferociously destroyed. Around 363-364, the Christian emperor Jovian, ordered the pagan library in Antioch to be burnt, leaving the helpless citizens watching the books go up in flames. [1]

Continuing this trend, around the year 372, the Christian emperor Valens (d.378), as part of his persecution of pagans, ordered the burning of non-Christian books in Antioch. (The main target were pagan books on divination and magic but most of the books burned were mainly on liberal arts and law). Fearful of the emperor, many provinces of the eastern empire burned their own libraries to avoid his wrath.[2]"

[Roger Pearse]

Um, but no such events took place, not during the 4th century at any rate.



hi RP,

i came across this webpage concerning book burning and would like ur opinion on this subject

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bookburn.html#1

"The moment Christianity came into power in the fourth century, books that do not conform to its teaching were ferociously destroyed. Around 363-364, the Christian emperor Jovian, ordered the pagan library in Antioch to be burnt, leaving the helpless citizens watching the books go up in flames. [1]

Continuing this trend, around the year 372, the Christian emperor Valens (d.378), as part of his persecution of pagans, ordered the burning of non-Christian books in Antioch. (The main target were pagan books on divination and magic but most of the books burned were mainly on liberal arts and law). Fearful of the emperor, many provinces of the eastern empire burned their own libraries to avoid his wrath.[2]"

References offered:

1. Forbes, C. "Books for the Burning"Transactions of the American Philological Society 67 (1936): p114-25

2. Beckmann, History of Pi: p80
Forbes: p114-125

Forbes is online at my site here (http://www.tertullian.org/articles/forbes_books_for_the_burning.htm).

Note how Tobin offers 10 pages as his reference, rather than specific ancient sources, and spins what Forbes actually says. Have a read.


The moment Christianity came into power in the fourth century, books that do not conform to its teaching were ferociously destroyed.


We're left unclear when this precisely is supposed to be. I was wondering what "ferocious destruction", as opposed to destruction, was? How do you burn a book "ferociously"?

The idea that "Christianity came into power"... what does this mean?

This article is hate-rhetoric, I think. The facts seem rather few on the ground. I wonder just what evidence we have that the Antiochenes were angry that Jovian burned books; rather than angry at Julian, who collected them? Or that they were angry at all?

I'm on the run, so just a few thoughts.

All the best,

Roger Pearse