spamandham

Not necessarily, but there needs to be good reason to conclude that's what's going on. What is the reasoning involved in concluding that the seven churches are seven literal churches?

Here is a reason not to make that assumption. Seven times in Rev. 2, the following phrase is repeated as the author addresses each of the churches, "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." The author is not talking to seven literal churches, it is not a collection of 7 literal letters, he's talking to the reader. The seven churches are symbolic literary devices.

maryhelena

Solo, it's your post that brought up this earlier review of Robert Price - you saw fit to refer to it in connection with the review of Murdock's book. I found something in the Smith review that does have relevance to the Murdock review - and if this is taking something "out of context and badly misreading the intent of the remark" - well, I'm quite content to let Price be the judge of that! Perhaps you don't like the word 'updating' - how about adapting, borrowing or influenced.

yardstick (yärd´stîk´) noun
1. A graduated measuring stick one yard in length.
2. A test or standard used in measurement, comparison, or judgment. See synonyms at STANDARD.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.

My pleasure :wave:

Wow, have I really got my very own very first missionary?
Actually, since I'm not in the business of looking for converts perhaps a little less of the condescending manner might be in order... :constern01:

Solo

Well, if that's the way you want to read it, fine, it would not be the first time someone is wrong about something.

But we should note here: Cumont believed the rite originated with the worship of Anahita (Mithra's virgin mother goddess), based on Plutarch (I believe 'Artaxerxes') who asserted cows were sacrificed to her. He was also persuaded that the term was derived etymologically from Artemis Tauropolos. This may not fly today but the syncretistic origins of Cybelle/Attis rite seems to be argued for by the earliest taurobolium inscription from Puteoli, which makes the sacrifice not to the Great Mother but to Venus Caelesta. So a female deity, fertility cult, and sacrifice of cattle seem have more than one form of mythical expression and practice.

Jiri

Roger Pearse

It's a fake, tho.

I also looked up all the literary mentions of the Taurobolium -- all four of them! -- and you can find them all here. A kind friend was researching the subject and send me various papers etc connected with it, so I put what I could online.

The taurobolium is a ritual associated with Cybele, not Mithras. Both the archaeology and the literature indicate this.

It also changes its nature over time, if I recall correctly. The idea that participating in it might purify oneself is a 4th century idea, possibly under Christian influence. Earlier taurobolia were carried out for the benefit of the empire, for instance.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Rick Sumner

The author tells us as much. The prima facie case places the burden of proof on the dissenter. It's the same reason I can't suggest that the Mithraic Liturgy was actually written by the Bacchae as a caricature.

That he intends other people to read it doesn't indicate that there were not seven real churches in mind. Indeed, the suggestion offerered from the Anchor Bible Dictionary above--that it was on a mailing route--fairly demands that he expects it to be disseminated beyond that. He wrote to the churches the letter would get to, but expected them to disseminate its message to other churches.

Rick Sumner

Indeed it did. But the question is whether or not, in the cult of Roman Mithras, that took the form of the taurobolium. There is no evidence that it did.

While Cumont meant well, I think you're too generous with him too. He built Mithraism on what he thought a mystery school should look like as much, if not more, than he based it on what his evidence told him.

Rick Sumner

Again, I think Price has sound reasoning behind it. He's just operating outside his field, and it shows. And the Smith quote isn't "out of context," it's placed in a list of specific examples of tangible copying. Price's point is that of course the cap was borrowed, and of course the taurobolium was borrowed, so it's not unreasonable to suggest that other things were borrowed as well. And fundamentally, that's fine logic. It's not the thought process that's wrong.

Whether the logic is fine or not has nothing to do with whether or not his obvious examples are legitimate. They aren't.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

gurugeorge

That's exactly right, I think.

There need be no conscious borrowing in any of this, it's simply a general abstract principle that becomes apparent (i.e. gradually sinks in) from observation of Nature, to minds of a certain mystical/philosophical bent, in various cultures, roundabout the same time.

Rick Sumner

While I'm not persuaded, this could be true. But it isn't what Price is saying in his review.

Amaleq13

This was already provided in this post:

It seems reasonable to suggest that this is not a coincidence.