andrewcriddle

I'm afraid I don't regard this as direct evidence.

We do have evidence from the Zodiacs in the Mithraea of various dates being significant. Interestingly, the planets of the Mithraeum of Sette Sfere seem to represent dawn on March 21st 172 CE. However. different Mithraea seem represent other days of the year. (eg 20th November and the Summer Solstice.)

Andrew Criddle

Solo

I am sorry, I don't follow, Andrew. Are you saying that Ulansey is wrong in reading the tauroctony symbols as relating to the "expelling" of Taurus by Perseus from the vernal seat of the sun ? When you say, some mithrea "represent" other dates, are you saying that the tauroctony depiction in them is tied to other astro events ? Or is the symbology of the tauroctony as the central ikon of Western Mithraism (which if IIUC is invariant except in minor details) not zodiac depictions at all ? I would also like to see some weightier critique of Ulansey's theory, which I have not seen challenged except in minor issues (i.e. precession was not univerally accepted by astronomers in antiquity, the idea supposedly assumes "astronomical ages" of which there is no evidence). I would be grateful if you could point me to one.

Jiri

andrewcriddle

Hi Jiri

This is a good point, about different ways in which significant dates are represented. To be more specific the Santa Prisca Mithraeum was consecrated 20 November 202 CE and the orientation of the Konigshofen Mithraeum appears related to the Summer Solstice. My point is that although the spring equinox was clearly significant to Mithraists it does not seem to have been uniquely so.


There is a good brief critique of Ulansey in Beck's Place of the Lion. IMO Ulansey is entirely right to emphasize the importance of astronomical/astrological ideas in Mithraism, but his specific ideas are (again IMO) wildly unlikely.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
Ahem. A landMark book. Jesus Interrupted is all about communicating. Communicating to the Masses (so to speak) that the Word is for the Birds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIK3GXdkxL0

In the preface, Bart Ehrman, the Messiah of Reason, gives us his background and explains why he wrote this book. Ehrman started Moody Bible Institute (fundamentalist) at seventeen driven by "a religious desire for certainty." He went to Wheaton College for a degree in English literature (that's why he understands the Bible as literature). He wanted to be an expert in manuscripts so he went to Princeton seminary because Bruce Metzger was there.

When Ehrman got to Princeton he was an Inerrantist. He learned at Princeton that the Bible was errant and had to chose between the Truth and Fundamentalist Christianity. He chose Truth.

Ehrman sees the Bible as "the most significant book in the history of our civilization." Therefore, Ehrman sees it as important for society to understand what the Bible is and what it is not. The implication here is that Ehrman thinks it important that society understand not just that the Bible is errant but how errant it is. Ehrman notes that the NRSV is his translation of choice (which I also think is the best available).

Ehrman has crossed the threshold here between Skeptic and activist Skeptic. God bless him. We have the irony here that the greatest textual critic the world has ever known went from Fundamentalist to active Skeptic because of the textual evidence. Up till now Ehrman played the part of the loyal opposition avoiding public criticism of the Bible and the result was that he was only demonized in a disorganized way by his original Fundamentalist family. Now that he has made a full turn to the Truth, expect him to be demonized on an organized basis. It will be interesting to see the reaction now from mainstream Christian Bible scholarship.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Solo

Hi Andrew. I have not read the book, only a couple of Beck's papers. In one of them, he seemed to think Ulansey's precession theory assumed precise astronomical time-charts and historical overview of the constellations that was not available in antiquity. My reply to that would be that theories that invade public consciousness are a popular rendering of technical matters. I do not see why per se this would have been different in the dissemination of Hipparchus' ideas among non-techincal intellectuals. Thanks for the link.

Jiri

jon-eli

Political correctness has always been better than accuracy, of course.

Are you suggesting that Ehrman is the greatest textual critic the world has ever known? I thought Tischendorf had claim to that. Or Metzger, perhaps... But Ehrman? Surely you jest.

You don't get much more mainstream than Bart Ehrman. And we already know how he reacts to himself.

bacht

I wondered about that. In the preface to the NRSV Bruce Metzger claims that English has gender restrictions that the Biblical languages didn't, hence the need to adjust an English rendering to suit the flavour of the original (I'm paraphrasing, I don't have it in front of me). Is that what you mean by 'politically correct'?

Clivedurdle

Newgrange?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrange

jon-eli

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. I think it's very misguided the way they've pursued gender-neutrality so vigorously. It's not that they have a poor understanding of the biblical texts... what they say about them is perfectly true. The problem is, they don't really understand English as well as they think they do. English wasn't designed with gender-neutral grammar built in, so the translators have totally abused the syntax of the English language to create something even sillier and less accurate than the alternative. They've shown preference for gender-neutrality over correct sentence structure, and beyond political correctness I can't see why.

fatpie42

Sounds like something out of Raiders of the Lost Ark, lol!