Steven Avery

Definitely. I'm printing it out to read. I immediately notice a far more cautious tone ....

re Cumont's scholarship of Roman mithra origins:
"difficult to use the purely archaeological evidence as the basis
for a coherent social history of the cult."

The irony in all this is that the discussion of mithra origins is quite separate from the December 25 question, and the quite nunaced questions on one scholarship issue barely touches the other.

Here was the primary reference, since the issue was December 25 coming over from mithra paganism.

http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/boo..._sunday/8.html
71. In the Philocalian calendar (A.D. 354) the 25th of December is designated as "N[atalis] Invicti—The birthday of the invincible one" (CIL I, part 2, p. 236); Julian the Apostate, a nephew of Constantine and a devotee of Mithra, says regarding this pagan festival: "Before the beginning of the year, at the end of the month which is called after Saturn [December], we celebrate in honor of Helios [the Sun] the most splendid games, and we dedicate the festival to the Invincible Sun. That festival may the ruling gods grant me to praise and to celebrate with sacrifice! And above all the others may Helios [the Sun] himself, the king of all, grant me this" (Julian, The Orations of Julian, Hymn to King Helios 155, LCL p. 429); Franz Cumont, Astrology and Religion Among Greeks and Romans, 1960, p. 89: "A very general observance required that on the 25th of December the birth of the ‘new Sun’ should be celebrated, when after the winter solstice the days began to lengthen and the ‘invincible’ star triumphed again over darkness"; for texts on the Mithraic celebration of Dec. 25th see CIL I, p. 140; Gordon J. Laing, Survivals of Roman Religion, 1931, pp. 58-65, argues persuasively that many of the customs of the ancient Roman Saturnalia (Dec. 17-23) were transferred to the Christmas season. G. Brumer, Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft, 1935, p. 178f and K. Prumm, Stimmen der Zeit, 1939, p. 215, date the festival of December 25 back to the Emperor Aurelian (A. D. 270-275), whose fondness for the worship of the Sun is well known. The hypothesis rests on Augustine’s censure of the Donatists (PL 38, 1033) for failing to observe January 6th. This, however, hardly implies that Christians celebrated Christ’s birthday on December 25th already at that time.

Cumont is referenced there, yet I have not seen any critique of this scholarship, dispite the fact that it is 100% germane to the thread.

When it comes to origins, Samuele says..
"While we disagree (Halsberghe) with the author on the date of the diffusion of Mithraism, since there are significant indications that it had reached Rome already in the first century A.D.,"

And then he gives the critiqued footnote with the Cilician (thanks for the spelling correction, Jeffrey) pirates.

"17. According to Plutarch (A.D. 46-125), Vita Pompeii 24, Mithra was introduced into Rome by the Cilician pirates taken captives by Pompey in 67 B.C. Papinius Statius (d. ca. A.D. 96) in a verse of the Thebaid speaks of "Mithra, that beneath the rocky Persean cave strains at the reluctant-following horns" (Thebaid I, 718-720, LCL I, p. 393). Turchi Nicola, La Religione di Roma Antica, 1939, p. 273: "The Mithraic religion was made known through the pirates ... but its influence was particularly felt beginning with the first century after Christ"; the same view is expressed by Franz Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra, 1956, p. 37; Textes et Monuments, 1896-1899, I, p. 338: "The propagation of the two religious [i.e., Mithraism and Christianity] was approximately contemporaneous" cf. Enciclopedia Cattolica, 1952, s.v. "Mithra e Mithraismo," by M. J. Vermaseren: "Mithra entered Rome (67 B.C.) with the prisoners of Cilicia . . . Its diffusion increased under the Flavii and even more under the Antoninii and Severii." "

So, in terms of this thread, on the main issue, Samuele's references are not touched, critiqued or anything, despite being rather extensive.

On the corollary issue Samuele is accused of quoting a misinterpretation on the pirates, and quoting Cumont, whose ideas are considered dated. Well, those are fine subjects for analysis, and is why I wrote him an email, however it doesn't touch the main point at all or justify the attempt to hand-wave away his references, with one reason being that he is an adventist.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

The origins of Mithra is a secondary part of our discussion here, barely related to December 25, mithra and Christian paganism, in a sense a diversion (albeit with its own interest) from the thread.

Looking at Samuele's discussion, the origins questions was also secondary in his writing, and it was only one aspect of a claim that sol invictus was distinct from mithra. Yet even there his own wordings in the body of text turns out to be fine.

"While we disagree with the author (Halsberghe) on the date of the diffusion of Mithraism, since there are significant indications that it had reached Rome already in the first century A.D., the differentiation between the two cults is persuasively demonstrated."

Now even if one disagrees with the "significant indications" of origin footnote, the actual facts on the 1st century ground ground seem agreed upon.

"the existence of mithraea in areas not occupied by the army after the end of the first century, such as the three Gauls or Dalmatia." - Volken

So it seems like the attempt here is to critique a footnote. Fine. That's why I wrote Samuele, asking for his views today. In the meantime the body of text stands fine, and the principle discussion and references to this thread are not even discussed.

So the single best scholarly source on the December 25/mithra issue found so far can be ignored because of unrelated footnote concerns ? Naaahhh..

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Roger Pearse

A little more from Julian the Apostate on this, since I have it in scanned form. What it says is that after Saturnalia
there was the festival of the Heliaia dedicated to the unconquered sun. It doesn't specify precisely when, but (from Julian) this must have taken place in the week leading up to New Year.

Is it reasonable to presume from this a connection to Natalis Invicti on 25 Dec? Would this not restrict the Heliaia to a single day, and rather too early? (These are questions, since I would really rather not rush to judgement).

But what is really interesting is a passage on the previous page, indicating that the start of the year was arranged for when they could actually *see* the days getting longer after the solstice.

But our forefathers, from the time of the most divine king Numa, paid still greater reverence to the god Helios. They ignored the question of mere utility, I think, because they were naturally religious and endowed with unusual intelligence ; but they saw that he is the cause of all that is useful, and so they ordered the observance of the New
Year to correspond with the present season; that is to say when King Helios returns to us again, and leaving the region furthest south and, rounding Capricorn as though it were a goal-post, advances from the south to the north to give us our share of the blessings of the year. And that our forefathers, because they comprehended this correctly, thus established the beginning of the year, one may perceive from the following. For it was not, I think, the time when the god turns, but the time when he becomes visible to all men, as he travels from south to north,that they appointed for the festival. For still unknown to them was the nicety of those laws which the Chaldaeans and Egyptians discovered, and which Hipparchus and Ptolemy perfected : but they judged simply by sense-perception, and were limited to what they could actually see.

But the truth of these facts was recognised, as I said, by a later generation. Before the beginning of the year, at the end of the month which is called after Kronos[3], we celebrate in honour of Helios the most splendid games, and we dedicate the festival to the Invincible Sun. And after this it is not lawful to perform any of the shows that belong to the last month, gloomy as they are, though necessary. But, in the cycle, immediately after the end of the Kronia[4] follow the Heliaia. That festival may the ruling gods grant me to praise and to celebrate with sacrifice ! And above all the others may Helios himself, the King of the All, grant me this, even he who from eternity has proceeded from the generative substance of the Good: even he who is midmost of the midmost intellectual gods ; who fills them with continuity and endless beauty and superabundance of generative power and perfect reason, yea with all blessings at once, and independently of time !

[3] i.e. December
[4] The festival of Saturn, the Saturnalia, was celebrated by the Latins at the close of December and corresponds to our Christmas holidays. Saturn was identified with the Greek God Kronos, and Julian uses the Greek word for the festival in order to avoid, according to sophistic etiquette, a Latin name.

This from vol.1 of the Loeb Julian, p.429.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

The reason for the connection, if I understand correctly, is that all the duff ideas are coming from the same source; the assertions of Franz Cumont. He believed that Mitra=Mithras, that Mithra/s was introduced by Cilician pirates, and that 25 December is Mithra/s day. But Cumont's ideas were all based on data a century out of date (impressive in its day though it was), and given the mess of his sources, he rushed to judgment in all these places.

The reason we get twitchy about Dr. B. is that his book reveals clear evidence that Cumont's views are his source, which means he isn't taking on board modern criticism of C. Therefore he could be (quite honestly, in passing) repeating something from Cumont for 25 Dec., just as he is doing for the Cilician pirates (which view we see in Vollken treated as dubious at best). The footnote rather suggests he is doing this, without in any way attacking him personally.

So, what we need to see is the data in each case, to follow up the footnotes and make sure we can see the raw statement.

What we need to see is the content of page 140 of volume 1 of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. That he gives as his source: what does it say?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jgibson000

No. The irony is that you don't see that date of the establishment of Mithraism in Rome and the origin of the Mithraic cult among Romans is NOT separate from the Dec. 25th "take-over" claim, since a major assumption underlying that claim is that a celebration on December 25 of Mithras' (not Mithra's) birthday was something long known and well established among Romans..

If one can show that a Roman cult of Mithrais was not something established "early", then one undercuts one of the legs on which the "Christmas is rooted in Mithraism" claim stands.

Jeffrey

Julian

[MOD]
Thread has been closed for several splits.

The discussion on the nature of posts and scholarship on II has been moved to here.

The Doherty, Barrett and Gibson derail has been moved here.

Please keep the discussion in this thread limited to the nativity and its date.

Thank you,
Julian -- Moderator BC&H

[/MOD]

Roger Pearse

Further to this, I have now examined the CIL I (1863) p.140 and it contains only inscriptions from 5-6th century coins, none mentioning Mithras (of course). I did wonder whether I part 1 might be intended; p.140 on that contains only republican consul lists.

I've written to the author and asked for his help on this reference.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Avery

There are really a number of distinct issues, with sub-issues.

1) Is there any NT support for the December 25 idea. Sub-issue, any support for the idea of a 'Jesus birthday holiday' at all. My answer, no, and extremely dubious. Sub-issue, early chruch writer support in the first two centuries, or even later. Again, no.

2) Is December 25 a mithras import

3) Is December 25 a pagan import of co-opting a solstice celebration by later 'Christianity'

4) Is Christmas 'popery', ie. catholic paganism

Most Christians who consider (3) and (4) to be yes have little concern for the exact details of the import, what is (2)

The Freke and Gandy types would be more concerned with (2) since they build up the 'Christianity from mithras' connection, and granted that is probably the major focus of many on this thread on this forum.

The Christian non-Dec25 view would only have a mild challenge to consider if both (2) and (3) together are no. (2) alone is interesting for intellectual and scholastic accuracy, but would not really offer any challenge to the 'December 25 celebration as paganism coopted into Christianity'' view.

So to a certain extent the forum has been having two different, related discussions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic