Roger Pearse

Not sure if I'm allowed to mention who found this for us (it came by email), but here is the entry:

A search for Xrhstoj pathr in this database of Greek inscriptions brought this up:

I.e. Chrestos the Pater and Gauros made [this]. If the inscription is Mithraic, then it indicates a priest of Mithras called Chrestos.

So, returning to the original claim:

In fact we find that far from Mithras being called Chrestos, as we are supposed to believe from this, it records nothing of the kind.

Clivedurdle

Roger you have jumped to conclusions!

We have at least three reasonably similar words - Christos Chrestos Chronus.

There may be others. The original thread was to discuss occurrences of the word Christ.

Surely as part of that it is logical to look at all similar words and check for confusions.

Are there not acknowledgements by early Church fathers that there were confusions or have I misunderstood that?

Are there not issues of changes between languages around annointed, saviour, good....?

That is all I have done - recommended a wider search to see if there are any patterns that have been missed!

So what if Mithras is called good, or an inscription was done by Mr Good? What has that to do with xianity? I thought it was accepted the Vatican was built on a Mithraic temple site. This one probably is coincidence but it should be checked!

andrewcriddle

The Inscription and Monument involved are online in Cumont's book here http://www.archive.org/details/texte...ment02cumouoft
(Warning in order to see this properly you need to use the PDF option which is a very large file)

The inscription is page 100 (inscription 39) and the monument pps 211-212
(monument 31). It is definitely a Mithraic monument (a standard tauroctony)
The comment by Cumont on the inscription is This seems to be saying that the senior Mithraist "Pater Chrestus" consecrated the monument rather than literally making it.

(Pater or Father is the most advanced or most senior of the seven ranks within Mithraism.)

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

I hardly think that I need comment.

All such claims should be checked. It's a little too common for people to post this sort of hearsay, and leave it up to people like Andrew and myself to verify. Such conduct is unfair on everyone else, I think.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I had not realised that Textes et Monumentes was online. Oh frabjous day! Whenever I've wanted to consult it I've had to drive 60 miles and sit in a rare books room, unable to photocopy a thing.

"Non videntur artifices esse Chrestus et Gaurus cf. Brunn, Hist. art., I, 611, qui cum recte iam Rochettius
vidisset Chrestum fuisse patrem Mithrae, verbum é-rroiriaav ita explicabat ut esset consacraverunt."

"It does not seem that Chrestus and Gaurus were the masons, cf. Brunn. Hist. art., I, 611, which already rightly Rochettius had seen that Chrestus was a pater of Mithras, the word <greek> so was explained that they were those who consecrated it." (Bad translation, sorry, but too many nested oratio obliquas for me)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

EarlDoherty

I certainly would not dispute that all of us are exposed to Internet repetition that may or may not be reliable, and sorting such out has become a major task.

But in this case, and again appealing to a principle, if one is going to charge a quote with inaccuracy, one needs to go back to the misquoted primary source to demonstrate that. Roger has stated that the "Historia Augusta" does not say a certain thing but rather another thing. But he gives the latter in his own indirect speech, which may or may not (theoretically) be an accurate reflection of the primary source. If he really wants to demonstrate convincingly that the quote I gave from Vopiscus was wrong or misleading, he needs to provide his own quote, state where he got it and show that his reading is correct and the reading in my own quote is incorrect. Quoting the original Latin would help in resolving such a disagreement where contrary claims about what an original document actually said have arisen.

I have certainly learned over the years that a lot of debates would go more smoothly and efficiently if we would be more scrupulous in matters like this, and that has applied to me as well. (Such as that if I had been most efficient, I would have gone to the Latin myself--if it's locatable; although I can say that I wasn't aware there was such a fundamental dispute over what the original passage said. My translation, by the way, came from Arthur Drews, The Witnesses to the Historical Jesus, p.52 who himself did not quote the Latin.)

Another thing I have learned is that any of us, in all honesty, may offer in our own words what a source we are using (whether primary or secondary) has said, but we may inadvertently misinterpret or slightly skew what that source said and give a wrong impression. Even Jeffrey, for example, in telling us what the "PW" says, could--for all we know--have done that, and so a direct quote from the "PW" would have stood us in better stead.

Thanks,
Earl Doherty

andrewcriddle

Hi Earl

Latin text here http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...us_et_al*.html English text here http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...us_et_al*.html Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

I have to agree that the persistent misinterpretation of this passage is annoying. It seems clear to me that he is criticizing the Egyptians for basically being religion whores. They'll worship with anyone and call themselves anything.

Covering all their bets for the afterlife or trying to maximize social/political connections?

Roger Pearse

Yes, I admit that I was a bit annoyed to see that crass canard again. I really thought we'd seen the last of it in this forum; that most people knew that it was misleading.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

There is some previous discussion of the Serapis issue here and in following posts in the thread "Christianity duing the reign of Augustus."

There is no separate thread devoted to Serapis, so it might be easy to miss.